T.G.Vincent's blog

Super Delegates

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:02:22 -0800

I'm amazed at how much of the media coverage of the Democratic New Hampshire Primary focuses on Hillary Clinton's "victory".

As Darren Abrecht of MacClatchy Interactive points out, "Clinton's popular-vote margin over Obama was razor-thin - fewer than 8,000 votes, or 3%, with 96% of precincts reporting. As a result, each will come away from New Hampshire with 9 delegates."
Source: http://www.kansascity.com/445/v-print/story/437288.html

It seems to me the more important story is not who "wins" a given primary but instead what is the overall delegate score. The last I counted, counting super-delegates, Clinton leads with 183 to Obama's 78 delegates. While this is a long way from the 2,025 delegates each candidate would need to sew up the nomination, watching the delegate count is what we should be concentrating on, not whether Hillary's "emotional moment" was sincere or not.

Media Consolidation: a call to action!

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:08:12 -0700

Remember when your local radio station was owned by someone in your community? Remember when the news you read, heard and watched really was "fair and balanced",

not because some ad man said so but because you actually had a variety of veiwpoints to choose from?

Media consolidation changed all that. Today radio and TV stations, newspapers and publishers, even movies and internet are owned by an ever smaller number of large multinational corporations, presenting an ever smaller variety of views.

Now, Kevin Martin, the new head of the FCC wants to loosen the limits on media ownership to allow even more consolidation. He plans to ram through his proposal as soon as December 18, behind closed doors, and with no public input.

We can't let this happen. I am calling all of you to action to keep this misguided proposal from happening. I urge everyone to act as soon as possible. Things you can do include:

1) Contact Congress. Congress has oversight power over the FCC. If the FCC won't listen to the public, then Congress must step in. Ask your Representative to hold full public hearings on the issue of media ownership right away - before Congress adjourns for the holiday recess.

2) Contact the FCC. Tell the FCC not to let Big Media get even bigger. The media ownership rules govern how we get news and information -- and that's especially important in an election year. Without diverse sources of information, we can't have a healthy debate about our nation's future, or a healthy democracy.

For further information, log onto common cause at:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=192086

Don't wait! Act today!

Policy Advisors

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:33:49 -0700

Policy Advisors

T.G. Vincent

Modern political coverage is a joke.

In today's media, image has so replaced issues that political coverage has become little more than a fashion show. (Didn't Hillary look great in that pants suit last night? And who did John Edward's hair?) As a result, citizens today often go to the polls with virtually no clue as to what a given candidate stands for, much less what type of president they'd make. For those who are troubled by this phenomenon and are still interested in learning something about a candidate other than their abs or the cost of their latest haircut, I offer the following:

Policy Advisors.

If you want a good indicator of what a candidate's true views are take a look at what kind of advisors they surround themselves with. I'm not talking about campaign advisors, now. I'm talking about the people who a candidate consults when formulating actual policy.

In a post on The Right's Field entitled "The Advisors", Paul Curtis lays it out:

if, during the 2000 presidential campaign, more of us had thought more about the significance of George W. Bush’s choice of policy advisors — from Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz to Marvin Olasky and Myron Magnet — not only would we have heard a lot less about how there was “no difference” between the two major candidates, but we would have also had a pretty good idea just what kind of president Bush would be.

Curtis goes on to examines Bill Simon, Rudi Giuliani's choice for policy director. Other pieces have examined Giuliani's neocon and Likud connections.

To be sure, a candidate's choice of advisors is not an absolute measure of what his policies will be when, and if, he reaches office. And in his defense, Rudi Giuliani has assembled quite a large team of advisors, indicating that foreign and domestic policy are important issues for him. (Unlike the current occupant of the White House). However, when you surround yourself as Giuliani has with rabid, foam at the mouth, hawks like Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes, it doesn't bode well for those of us who think unilateral military first strikes are a huge mistake.

Of course if you are happy with the current state of coverage of the next Presidential election you can ignore all this and just vote for Mitt Romney. I hear he's got great hair.

Hunting Oil

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:57:56 -0700

Hunting Oil

By T.G.Vincent

There has been much second guessing going on about the recent deal struck between the Kurdistan Regional government and Texas-based Hunt oil Corp. and their partner, Impulse Energy. News analysts and policy wonks have been examining the story with all the intensity of touts staring at their racing forms.

To be sure the close ties between Hunt oil's CEO, Ray L. Hunt and President George W. Bush invite suspicion. Hunt's documented contributions to Bush's campaigns, his appointment to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, as well as his presence on the board of directors of Halliburton make the oil contract positively reek of "sweetheart deal" corruption.

But when one looks past the surface another possibility suggests itself. Consider the following:

Hunt oil is hardly the first to strike an independant deal with Kurdistan. Hawler Energy, another Dallas based oil company - financed in part by our old friend Ross Perot - signed a deal before Kurdistan even passed their own oil law in August. There is DNO, a Norwegian firm which is already drilling as well as a number of small international wildcatters.

Then there is the question of how big the Hunt deal really is. The terms of the deal have not been made public. Qubad Talabani, Iraq's President has been quoted as saying Hunt oil has been awarded one block somewhere in the Dihok region. No one is saying exactly where.

There is definitely a question whether Hunt will ever see a dime from their investment. Although Hunt oil has a good track record there is still no guarantee of success. Even in relatively tranquil Kurdistan, dangers abound. The region's main pipeline from Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey is often shut down because of sabotage. Jan Veldwijk, CEO of Prime Natural Resources, the parent company of Hawler energy, said his firm has to hire between 150 to 190 peshmurga fighters loyal to local Kurdish leaders, to protect his two exploration blocks.

But if the Hunt deal is not a big deal in terms of money, why did they do it? What significance does it have?

Some have suggested that it is a symbolic gesture. A "warning shot" to the Iraqi Parliament that the Bush administration's patience is not unlimited and they (the Iraqis) better get their act together. If so, it would seem to have backfired as support for the much vaunted draft oil law seems to have evaporated mere days after the deal was signed.

Others say it is a trial ballon, a prelude to adopting a partition strategy like that of Senator Joe Biden's.

A third speculation is that it was designed as a kick in the pants to major oil companies to start investing in Iraqi oil (or risk losing out to minor players such as Hunt oil.)

Whatever the truth is, I find it hard to believe that someone in the Bush administration didn't know the deal was going to happen. President Bush's denial not withstanding, it's inconceivable that someone on his own circle could pull off a stunt like this without his knowledge. Unless of course George W. Bush doesn't have a clue as to what's going on around him...

Nahhh. Can't be.

Oily Hubris

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:13:10 -0700

Oily Hubris

By T.G. Vincent

In his recent book, "The age of Turbulence" Alan Greenspan finally talks about the elephant in the livingroom regarding the invasion of Iraq: namely that it was all about the oil. While this is not news to many of us it is surprising that almost five years after the invasion, the government still has so much trouble admitting this fact.

Walter Pincus' recent article in The Washington Post about the Commerce Department's actions in Iraq is a case in point. Pincus reports that:

... the Commerce Department is seeking an international legal adviser who is fluent in Arabic "to provide expert input, when requested" to "U.S. government agencies or to Iraqi authorities as they draft the laws and regulations that will govern Iraq's oil and gas sector."

What Gall.

Suppose you inherited a large sum of money, say a million dollars. Now imagine foreign soldiers kick down the door to your house, plonk themselves in your living room with their feet up on your coffee table and announce they are going to appoint a bureaucrat to come in and "advise" you how to spend your money... but only if you request it.

This is hubris writ large. As Pinkus points out, as a founding member of OPEC, Iraq is hardly a neophyte when it comes to disposing of it's own oil. Does the administration really think Iraq needs - or even wants - its help? Moreover, do they really think the world believes our intentions are honorable, vis a vis Iraq's Oil? If not, why bother with this type of subterfuge? The unwritten message in the Commerce department's creation of a "legal advisor" is obvious: "You can do whatever you like with your oil... provided we approve. Again from Pincus:

Based on the Commerce proposal, the United States has decided that Iraq needs a U.S.-funded expert who will be responsible "to review draft [Iraq] subsoil laws and draft subsoil regulations to ensure their compliance with international legal standards" and share his or her conclusions with U.S. agencies "or with Iraqi authorities."

It seems somewhat ironic that an administration who has been so cavalier in its attitude towards the legality of its unilateral actions - such as invasions, torture and military tribunals - should suddenly feel the need to ensure "international legal standards" when it comes to the task of divvying up another country's oil assets. Is anyone really fooled into thinking that "compliance with international legal standards" in this case means anything but "compliance with the desires of large multinational oil companies."

One good acid test for political double speak is to play what I call the "reversal game". For example, how would you feel if your slain loved ones were dismissed as "collateral damage". In this case if another country announced they were appointing an international "advisor" to review our "subsoil laws and regulations" to help ensure they "comply with international legal standards", would we think the action justified?

I have little problem with the Neo-con agenda for achieving hegemony in the Middle East. I don't agree with it but I think I understand the reasoning behind it. What I detest is when speech writers, bureaucrats and policy wonks try to use concepts such as international legal standards to mask their true intentions. It's not just disingenuous. It's dangerous. It's also an insult to the world's intelligence. You can dress that wolf up in Grandma's nightie all you like but it's not going to fool anyone, certainly not the Iraqis.