Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

NADA - New American Dark Ages

Refinery Capacity in the Hands of the Oil Industry, Not Environmentalists

NOW. Transcript. November 11, 2005 | PBS

JAMIE COURT: Oil companies have manipulated supply so that when there’s– gonna be a peak season of demand, they then withhold supply. And when there aren’t adequate inventories, the system is rigged for a shortage, even though it’s artificial.

MARIA HINOJOSA: You’re using these terms “rigged,” “control,” I mean, these are not terms that most people kind of accept in a free market society.

JAMIE COURT: Well, I think the only thing free about this market for oil companies in the United States of America is they’re free to do whatever they want. That’s the market.

MARIA HINOJOSA: After crude is drilled from the ground, it needs to be refined — turned into gasoline, diesel or home heating oil.

But since the peak in 1981, more than half of the refineries that used to operate in the U.S. have been shut down. And that, charge critics, has been part of an industry strategy going back years. …

SEN. RON WYDEN: There is no doubt that during the 1990s, if you just look at the oil companies’ own internal documents, that yes, in fact, what they did is look at how to limit production in order to boost their profits — not my words — the words of the oil industry.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Oregon’s senator Ron Wyden … who’s been following this issue for years … is referring to internal industry documents that came to light during Congressional investigations and court cases.

One example, a Chevron memo from 1995, which included this warning from an energy analyst … “if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins …”

That’s margins, as in profit margins. …

MARIA HINOJOSA: Now, refineries have been faced with tough environmental rules and community opposition — forcing many to close — or making it difficult to open new ones. But critics charge, the oil companies themselves play a role in this too.

Look what happened two years ago in Bakersfield, California.

Shell Oil, one of the industry’s biggest companies, had recently taken this refinery over. Some 400 people worked here and business seemed to be going strong.

It was “one of the few Shell U.S. refineries to turn a profit” according to this company memo, which praised the “world-class performance” of the employees there.

One of them was this man who asked us to hide his identity. He believes Shell wanted to tighten the supply of gasoline and diesel in California and that the company intended to close this refinery down in order to do that.

MARIA HINOJOSA: So just over a year after Shell buys the refinery, Shell is now telling its employees that they wanna sell the refinery?

WHISTLE BLOWER: No, that they wanna demolish the refinery.

MARIA HINOJOSA: They wanna get rid of it entirely?

WHISTLE BLOWER: Yes, correct. They would shut it down and demolish it. …

MARIA HINOJOSA: Shell continues to insist it did not make economic sense for the refinery to stay open. After the release of those documents, critics fought to keep Bakersfield running and Shell ended up selling the facility to a competitor earlier this year.

JAMIE COURT:The reason we’ve seen these price spikes — the reason we’ve seen the profit margins go up, is because a small number of oil companies have been able to consolidate and take control of this market. Independent refiners, if they still existed, wouldn’t allow this to happen because they would fill gaps in the market.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Two decades ago, a quarter of American refining was done by independents. But since then, many of those have shut down, refineries like Powerine, a small operation in Southern California.

It wanted to re-open after a temporary closure but that didn’t sit well with oil giant Mobil, which worried that if Powerine resumed production, gas prices would drop.

That would be good for consumers but bad for Mobil. In internal company emails, a Mobil manager wrote: “Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down. Full court press is warranted in this case …”
—–

Bloomberg.com: U.S.
U.S. Probing Plan to Shut Shell California Refinery (Update3)

July 7, 2004 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating possible antitrust violations related to the planned closure of a Royal Dutch/Shell Group refinery in California, which has the highest gasoline prices in the continental U.S.

Recent Press Release from Barbara Boxer, US Senator from California

Boxer said, “In the electricity crisis that hit California, we learned all too well that special economic interests had manipulated supplies and caused great harm to consumers. Let us not allow California to be hit again with this kind of manipulation.”

Bakersfield, California refinery – Google Search

Dump Duhbya

With ineptitude on full display, the party’s over for Republicans

With ineptitude on full display, the party’s over for Republicans – baltimoresun.com By Garrison Keillor

People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don’t point to the speck in your neighbor’s eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own.

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of Nancy Pelosi in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? …

Running against Ms. Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large shambling galoot who is speaker now, Tom DeLay’s enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches.

For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has no apparent vision beyond the urge to hang onto power. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas. …

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, “Wrong son. Should’ve tried the smart one.”

This one’s eyes don’t quite focus. Five years in office and he doesn’t have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to Tony Blair at a press conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans. …

So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the GOP can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

Dump Duhbya

Can Gay Marriage Help GOP?

We can take some comfort in how quickly the recent push against gay marriage died. You see in the process the declining power of the Religious Radical Right. I believe this ‘get out the base’ tactic will fail this fall after succeeding so well in 2004. Be sure to note the conservative argument FOR gay marriage below. mjh

Bush Re-Enters Gay Marriage Fight By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, [Bush] is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. …

In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Rep. Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: “Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.” [mjh: while they wage war on Christmas and burn the flag!] …

In 2004, 63 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 30 percent approved. In March, 51 percent opposed it and 39 percent supported it. [mjh: more of that Bush magic; in 3 years, 100% will support anything he opposes]

Can Gay Marriage Help GOP? By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek

Bush himself had been mostly mum on gay marriage since his re-election. But now, with his poll numbers in a nose dive and even his most enthusiastic supporters grousing, Bush took up the cause in his radio address Saturday; an amendment is needed because “activist courts have left our nation with no other choice,” he explained. …

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar. “I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff,” said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage.
—–

[mjh: David Brooks, conservative, wrote the following November 22, 2003.]

Op-Ed Columnist: The Power of Marriage By DAVID BROOKS, NYTimes

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. …

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. …

It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage.

mjh’s blog — ‘Where in the Bible…?’

mjh’s blog — Expanding Freedom

Dump Duhbya

Recent AOL Unscientific Poll — Poor Duhbya

How closely do Bush’s priorities match yours?
Not at all 58%
Very 24%
Somewhat 18%
Total Votes: 125,143

How would you rate his overall job performance?
Poor 60%
Good 18%
Excellent 12%
Fair 11%
Total Votes: 126,917

Where should gay marriage fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the bottom 67%
At or near the top 19%
In the middle 15%
Total Votes: 124,858

How would you rate Bush’s handling of gay marriage?
Poor 61%
Excellent 21%
Good 11%
Fair 7%
Total Votes: 125,004

Where should illegal immigration fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 53%
In the middle 37%
At or near the bottom 10%
Total Votes: 73,387

How would you rate Bush’s handling of illegal immigration?
Poor 53%
Fair 25%
Good 15%
Excellent 6%
Total Votes: 74,132

Where should the war in Iraq fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 89%
In the middle 6%
At or near the bottom 4%
Total Votes: 70,972

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq?
Poor 67%
Good 14%
Fair 11%
Excellent 8%
Total Votes: 72,218

Where should the war on terror fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 78%
In the middle 18%
At or near the bottom 3%
Total Votes: 68,988

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the war on terror?
Poor 54%
Fair 17%
Good 15%
Excellent 14%
Total Votes: 70,086

Where should the economy fall on Bush’s priority scale?
At or near the top 78%
In the middle 21%
At or near the bottom 2%
Total Votes: 67,065

How would you rate Bush’s handling of the economy?
Poor 61%
Fair 14%
Good 13%
Excellent 12%
Total Votes: 68,603

Dump Duhbya

The Imperial President

Bar group will review Bush’s legal challenges – The Boston Globe By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office. …

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined. …

William Sessions , a retired federal judge who was the director of the FBI under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush , said he agreed to participate because he believed that the signing statements raise a “serious problem” for the American constitutional system.

“I think it’s very important for the people of the United States to have trust and reliance that the president is not going around the law,” Sessions said. “The importance of it speaks for itself.” …

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, promised to hold a hearing on Bush’s use of signing statements.
—–
See mjh’s blog — Stealth Vetoes

NADA - New American Dark Ages

It’s Not Fascism When We Do It!

Vast DNA Bank Pits Policing Vs. Privacy By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer

Brimming with the genetic patterns of more than 3 million Americans, the nation’s databank of DNA “fingerprints” is growing by more than 80,000 people every month, giving police an unprecedented crime-fighting tool but prompting warnings that the expansion threatens constitutional privacy protections.

With little public debate, state and federal rules for cataloging DNA have broadened in recent years to include not only violent felons, as was originally the case, but also perpetrators of minor crimes and even people who have been arrested but not convicted.

Now some in law enforcement are calling for a national registry of every American’s DNA profile, against which police could instantly compare crime-scene specimens. Advocates say the system would dissuade many would-be criminals and help capture the rest.

“This is the single best way to catch bad guys and keep them off the street,” said Chris Asplen, a lawyer with the Washington firm Smith Alling Lane and former executive director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. “When it’s applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn’t even know it was going on.”

Dump Duhbya

Orwellian cheeriness that has become a Bush administration specialty

A Fishy Policy
The Bush administration’s big chill on speech isn’t limited to global warming.

YOU’D THINK THE Bush administration would have learned its lesson with James Hansen and global warming. Apparently not. Mr. Hansen, you may recall, is the NASA scientist who was muzzled — by a 24-year-old résumé falsifier, no less — in his efforts to warn about the dangers of climate change. Mr. Hansen, it turned out, wasn’t alone: Other employees working on that issue at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been chastised for speaking out and answering media questions.

Now it appears that this chilling effect isn’t just for global warming. According to a report in Wednesday’s Post by Blaine Harden, NOAA has directed that questions about endangered salmon — which the agency is responsible for protecting — are to be answered only by headquarters, and then only by three officials, all political appointees. Scientists and other agency officials who actually work on the salmon studies aren’t supposed to answer reporters’ questions.

This latest crackdown came — coincidentally, officials insist — the day after a Post article quoted a NOAA spokesman in Seattle as making positive comments about decisions by a federal judge and federal scientists that ran contrary to Bush administration policies on salmon protection.

With the Orwellian cheeriness that has become a Bush administration specialty, NOAA headquarters spokesman Jeff Donald explained that the change was made because “some folks were trying to consolidate a little bit and make sure everything we were putting out was accurate and as up to date as possible.” That’s the kind of helpfulness we don’t need.