From His Lips . . . October 4, 2006March 5, 2017 Herewith, the bulk of Paul Krugman’s recent column in the New York Times. (But wait – isn’t it time you subscribed to New York Times Select – both because it’s great, and because the world needs a healthy New York Times? You can start with a free trial; you can give subscriptions as gifts; if you’re a student or faculty member, you can get it even cheaper. Click!) It suggests that the rightwing stranglehold on our government may have begun to crack. Things Fall Apart By PAUL KRUGMAN The New York Times October 2, 2006 . . . At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats – between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils. Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money. The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed, because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group’s belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that belief into question, and the whole thing falls apart. Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry. . . . James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of ‘just ignoring those that put them in office.’ . . . In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush’s focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. ‘Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?’ asked Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author of ‘The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.’ The answer, he said, was ‘blatant pandering to James Dobson.’ He went on, ‘Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies.’ Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican candidate, recently declared, ‘I was a Republican until they lost their minds.’ So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems that we’re not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn’t seem to be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state’s Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year. And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he ‘got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.’
Morons October 3, 2006January 10, 2017 MORE ON THE PIRATES Alan Flippen: ‘As much as I agree with you on the substance here, the Roman history lesson you posted doesn’t really work as an analogy. By 68 BC the Roman Republic had already been through 60 years of intermittent civil wars and dictatorships; this was merely one more step along the road to its destruction, not the start of it. What may be more relevant in the long run is the cause of all the turmoil: the widening gap between patricians and plebeians, or in today’s terms, between the haves and have-nots. It was as unhealthy for society then as it is now.’ MORE ON BOREALIS Joanna Opaskar: ‘Maybe good news for Borealis?’ ☞ This is a link to an NPR interview where Virgin Atlantic’s Richard Branson, who has committed $3 billion or so over 10 years to reduce CO2 emissions, described an idea for saving fuel on the tarmac: You are towed by a small tug to the starting grid. Then the pilot would turn on the engines 10 minutes before take-off and then take off. On a global basis we’re talking about millions of tons of CO2 saving just on that idea alone. So what if you didn’t even need a tug? What if an electric motor the size of a watermelon could drive the plane on the tarmac instead? Maybe Sir Richard will risk a tiny sliver of that $3 billion to take Borealis subsidiary Chorus Motors subsidiary WheelTug under his wing. MORE ON TEACHING ENGLISH IN CHINA (If you speak English, you could do it, too) Jesse: ‘There were 48 teachers for the three weeks this September in Wuhan – 140 grad students for each pair of teachers, so it’s a significant thing [24 pairs x 140 = 3,360 students] and much appreciated at Huazhong University. Our students have been studying English since the 6th grade, but almost none of them ever talked with an American before. Don’t know the American teacher numbers on the July session [though summers are probably even more popular]. My lady Sharon and I took the optional one week tour (Beijing and Xian) before classes, and yes, that plus airfare ate up our stipend and then some. There is also a week tour after classes which we did not take. We live in Ohio in Summer; Tucson in Winter. Got interviewed in Tucson but did not attend training sessions there. Most of the teachers are from Tucson, but some from far away places, many walks of life. Teach for Friendship is sort of a private mini-Peace Corps, all administered by unpaid staff. A great way for retired people to spend time and effort. If the idea could catch on and similar outfits set up around the US it could be a great thing for our country.’
Pirates Attack Rome And Why We Should Care October 2, 2006March 5, 2017 Commenting on Friday‘s column, where I credited ‘liberals’ with ending slavery, Mike Wallin writes: ‘If I recall, it was a REPUBLICAN who ended slavery.’ Which of course it was. But ending slavery was the liberal position in Lincoln’s day. If we had Lincoln back today, he would be horrified by the leadership of his party, just as today’s liberals – and at least seven prominent conservatives – are. Now, here are two recent essays you may have seen that fit well together: 1. In Case I Disappear By William Rivers Pitt truthout.org | Perspective Friday 29 September 2006 I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. “Be careful,” people always tell me. “These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren’t being followed.” A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a “safe room” set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said. I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn’t yet been red-lined, I thought. Matters are different now. It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy. So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender. Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures. Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution. It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, “Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.” It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself. The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law. Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in. Underneath all this is the definition of “enemy combatant” that has been established by this legislation. An “enemy combatant” is now no longer just someone captured “during an armed conflict” against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an “enemy combatant” anyone who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Consider that language a moment. “Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called “War on Terror.” If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up. By writing this essay, I could be deemed an “enemy combatant.” It’s that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I’m not laughing anymore. In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place. That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you. 2. Pirates of the Mediterranean By Robert Harris The New York Times September 30, 2006 In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped. The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself. Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.” Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.” What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” – “I am a Roman citizen” – was a guarantee of safety throughout the world. But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law. “Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.” Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury – 144 million sesterces – to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated. Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place. But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book – the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” – powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire. Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant – all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive. An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same. In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar – the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate – was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state. It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon – and the rest, as they say, is ancient history. It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy – imperfect though it was – rose again. The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result. Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome.
Teach English in China Next Summer! September 29, 2006January 10, 2017 But first . . . BILL Landy Christensen: ‘I’m surprised that you would even consider printing that garbage.’ ☞ Once in a while I think it’s helpful. Both to remind those of us who disagree with Bill what passionate opposition we face . . . and perhaps to cause some of who disagree with us but are more thoughtful than Bill (as most are) to wonder why Bill agrees with them. Having Bill on their side obviously does not prove them wrong. And I would not suggest they are wrong on every single thing. But still. John Kasley: ‘It’s a potent reminder how important it is to vote. I’ll bet Bill votes.’ David: ‘I hope Bill does not count himself as a ‘compassionate’ conservative.’ George from Alabama: ‘I have to hear this mindset each workday. Actually, Bill’s political opinions are on no higher plane than a rabid sport fan’s: Conservatism is simply the ‘team’ he chose to cheer for.’ ☞ Go, Green Bay! Actually, you make a good point. The country is almost splitting into two increasingly antagonistic teams. We desperately need to find more common ground, conduct more civil, reasoned discourse. Chad: ‘Maybe it’s just me, but Bill seems angry.’ ☞ You want angry? How about Keith Olbermann on the Chris Wallace / Clinton interview. Click here to see it. It will make Bill’s head explode. But as angry as it is – and earnest – it’s clear that a lot of thought went into it. A DIFFERENT BILL A different Bill writes: ‘I voted for Bush, but I am now: Disappointed in my president. Disillusioned by the war in Iraq (I think we were mislead). Open minded, but still very nervous of depending on a Democrat to defend my family from terror threats. Yes, I voted for Bush – but don’t ridicule me; instead extend a hand and show me why the Democratic Party offers more. I was in favor of Iraq – don’t tell me how foolish I was – think about why I felt so strongly. Don’t just tell me what the Republicans are doing wrong; tell me what Democrats will do right. Don’t convince me I was wrong in the past; convince me you have a plan to go from this point forward, and you’ll be amazed. People like me (and not the closed-minded fringe like yesterday’s opposing point of view) are the voters that can make the difference in the next election – but I need to see less piling on and more substance to vote democratic.’ ☞ This Bill, I think, is dead on. We make a terrible mistake when we ridicule people who don’t see things our way. My sense is that we don’t actually do this as much as they think – they keep hearing, from Rush Limbaugh and others, that we ridicule them, yet I don’t remember Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry (or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi) doing a lot of ridiculing. And I hope my own continuous sharp criticism of the current Republican leadership does not often cross the line to ridicule of Republicans generally. (Ridiculing a few specific Republicans is all but irresistible. But Jon Stewart does it so much better than I ever could.) To the extent we do cross that line, it’s dumb and we need to do better. As to Different Bill’s specific points, I think most people actually do know the kinds of things Democrats favor domestically. Democrats will work much harder for affordable health care, college loans, safer coal mines, cleaner water, a hike in the minimum wage, a more effective FEMA, less government intrusion in personal decisions, a sustainable environment . . . all that. (And as Bill Winter, a marine running for Congress in Colorado, is fond of saying: think of some of the things we liberals gave America that you like – like weekends. And the 40-hour work week. And an end to slavery, and public education, and women’s suffrage, and Social Security, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Liberals did all that.) But Different Bill’s main concern seems to be terrorism. And my own view is that if Al Gore had been in the White House, he would have taken the ‘tremendous’ ‘immediate’ threat of Bin Laden with utmost seriousness and very possibly killed him before 9/11 could have happened. He would surely not have taken a month vacation after getting an August 6 briefing titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.’ I think the same kind of liberal Democrats who beat Hitler and took very tough action in Japan . . . the same kind who faced down Khrushchev over Cuba and Berlin . . . the same kind who deposed Slobodan Milosovich . . . and the same kind who were fighting terrorism only to see that effort ratcheted down and redirected toward Iraq – read Richard Clarke’s book, read Paul O’Neill’s book, read Bob Woodward’s book – those same kind of patriotic, tough Democrats would exercise better judgment than the current Administration has, and would find more effective ways to use what’s left of our strength to protect America. Strength is only as good as the strategic thinking behind it. The strategic thinking of this Administration has been abysmal, has weakened us terribly, and made us less safe. And one final thing. Just by not being the Republican Party, the Democrats will have a leg up in keeping us safe. That’s because, whether you think it is fair or not, much of the rest of the world yearns for America to ‘reboot.’ We will be stronger if we have more of the world back on our side. Even if we wound up doing exactly what the Bush team would have done, it would be better received and better supported coming from people who had worked hard to retire the Bush team. We need you, Different Bill, and will welcome you with open arms. And now, finally . . . TAKE A FEW WEEKS TO TEACH ENGLISH IN CHINA Jesse: ‘Just got back from a trip to China and wanted to catch up on the columns I missed. How come your archives don’t have anything later than June ’06?’ Me: ‘Because they are shown in European date format – 06 means 2006, not June. Thanks for your interest.’ Jesse: ‘Well, duh. Thanks.’ Me: ‘How was China?’ Jesse: ‘Memorable. Taught 140 Chinese grad students English for three weeks, for an outfit called Teach for Friendship. Wouldn’t trade the experience. If any of your readers want to work their butt off for a pittance, they might look into it. I got paid 5000 RMB and brought most of it home. My neighborhood Wells Fargo charged a mere 15% to change it into dollars.’
Bill’s View September 28, 2006March 5, 2017 A CONTRARY VIEW Bill: ‘It just amazes me that morons like yourself keep proving your stupidity by claiming the elections were stolen. Gore did his best to steal the 2000 election, and thank God he wasn’t successful (can you imagine that buffoon as president during and after 9/11; he probably would have chastised the terrorists for contributing to global warming with their attacks). And then you again prove what a piece of shit you are by referring to Robert Kennedy, Jr. and his drivel. Do you really believe that asshole has any credibility? The bottom line Andrew, you libs get infuriated when you are not in power. You will lie, slander or do whatever it takes to get back in power. So far it hasn’t worked. So go to hell you liberal piece of shit. If the terrorists strike in this country again, I hope you are the first one they take out.’ IS YOUR KID READY FOR AN ADVENTURE? Click here to trek across the North Pole with some British explorers – and more. It’s Adventure Ecology, from David de Mayer Rothschild and team. Pretty cool.
Inside September 27, 2006March 5, 2017 FMD Up another four bucks or so the past week, but guru says: don’t sell. TORTURE The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. – George W. Bush, June 2003 To which, last week, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan responded: Let’s be clear here: it is the president’s belief that anyone who sanctions mistreatment of military prisoners under the definition of the U.N. Convention on Torture should be prosecuted as a war criminal. One simple question: how exactly does that now not apply to him? – Andrew Sullivan, September 2006 INSIDE AL-QAEDA Here, from the New Yorker a couple of weeks back, is the story of Junior, who loves women – and waffles – and was Bin Laden’s accountant, more or less, for several years before entering our federal witness protection plan. So that’s how we knew Bin Laden was a ‘tremendous’ and ‘immediate’ threat. If you can find the time, it could hardly be more absorbing. INSIDE JESUS CAMP ‘Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush’ – in case you missed this documentary (and weren’t already worried enough).
Democracy and Aldabra September 26, 2006January 10, 2017 AND IF VOTER SUPPRESSION (yesterday‘s column) DOESN’T WORK . . . How about election fraud? Robert Kennedy, Jr. has a new piece in Rolling Stone. His previous piece detailed how the Republicans kept 350,000 votes from being cast or counted in Ohio, which likely determined the outcome of the 2004 election. This one makes the case that electronic voting machines can’t be trusted. These pieces are painful to read because it is almost paralyzing to imagine how much better off the world would have been if the 2000 election had not been systematically stolen in Florida (in large part by the Florida Secretary of State, who simultaneously co-chaired Bush’s Florida campaign committee) or if the 2004 election had not arguably have been stolen, too (in large part by the Ohio Secretary of State, who simultaneously co-chaired Bush’s Ohio campaign committee). But those – of either party – who care about democracy should read these pieces and work for reform, because without verifiable elections, there is no democracy. ALBAW Yesterday the Aldabra warrants closed up 7 cents, at 92 cents, with three quarters of a million of them trading hands, while the underlying stock closed down 3 cents at $5.67 on volume of just 9,200 shares. Someone apparently agrees with us that the warrants were priced too low relative to the stock. Even now, buying the warrants at 92 cents means paying only a 25-cent premium over their intrinsic value. (The warrants, you will recall, allow you to buy the stock for $5 any time between now and February, 2009.) It’s great to see interest in the warrants, but over the long run, for this to work out, the stock has to go up too. Indeed, for now, the bargain-priced warrants may actually be sapping demand for the stock. Right? If you liked the stock, why would you buy it? Might you not buy the warrants instead? Yes, you pay an extra 25 cents over their intrinsic value to buy the warrants. But instead of risking, say, $56,700 to buy 10,000 shares, you would risk $9,200 to control 10,000 shares, getting to keep all but $2,500 of any profit that might accrue. Your loss, in case this goes south, is limited to 92 cents instead of $5.67; and you can control a lot more shares, for a given investment, in case it should happen to go north. Not to say this speculation is in any way foolproof. If the stock fell to $5 by the time the warrants expired, they would expire worthless (the right to buy a $5 stock for $5 is worth nothing) – a 100% loss. And as February, 2009, looms, if a zillion warrants are exercised with the idea that their holders will immediately turn around and sell the stock to take their profit, that won’t work out so well, either – a ton of selling would presumably depress the price of the stock. In fact, even if the warrant-exercisers don’t rush to sell, the company’s earnings per share will be diluted by all those newly issued shares. (Silver lining: the company would be taking in $5 for each warrant exercised, a nice boost to its liquidity.) If we’re lucky, the premium on the warrants will widen to the point that people who like the stock will decide to just buy the stock, rather than pay a wide premium to buy the warrants. And if we’re lucky, the fundamentals of the company will be such that, in 2009, no one who does own shares will want to part with them for less than $7 or $8 (or more?) per share. I have zero expertise to make the case this will happen – but it could. So I’m hanging on. Now go read that Rolling Stone article. If democracy is worth so much blood and treasure fighting for in Iraq, it’s worth a few minutes reading about in America.
Gas Prices September 25, 2006January 10, 2017 Warren Spieker: ‘While I’m no fan of oil companies or high gas prices, doesn’t it sound a little too conspiratorial (is that a word?) to suggest that gas prices are being manipulated around the election? After all, oil prices have declined roughly 23% from their peak while gas prices have declined significantly less. And you aren’t suggesting that oil companies control the worldwide market for oil are you? If there really were a conspiracy, wouldn’t the gas prices decline MORE than the oil price?’ ☞ Yes, conspiratorial is a word, and, yes, Friday’s suggestion may be just that. But I no longer dismiss such things out of hand as I would have before we became a nation that does not torture (we just waterboard) and a nation that does not go to war under false pretenses (we just ‘fix the intelligence around the policy’). It’s may be far-fetched – but maybe not. On the drop in gas prices, remember that the gas taxes of roughly 45 cents a gallon don’t change when the world oil price drops, and neither does the cost of moving that oil from the wellhead to the gas pump or the cost of running the gas station, so you wouldn’t expect gas prices to fall by the same percentage as oil prices. (Imagine that the world oil price fell by 100%, to zero. The price of gasoline would not fall by 100%. After the 45-cent tax, the cost of transmission, and the cost of running gas stations, gasoline might still cost close to a buck.) Warren also asks whether, with summer driving over, prices don’t always decline this time of year. And ‘James’ writes in to say ‘oil prices fell 17% last year and 18% the year before during this time.’ If that’s true, the TV reporters should have said so. (‘Motorists are happy to see that, right on schedule, the annual sharp drop in gasoline prices has shown up at the pump, Brian. Of course, they had best not get smug – if history is a guide, prices will be back up as the heating oil season kicks in.’) But I didn’t hear them say that, perhaps because it’s not true. A too-quick Google search brings me to this (scroll down to the 8th of 17 pages), showing that in 2003 gasoline prices went up sharply from July to September, stayed flat in that period of 2004 (an election year, by the way), and went up sharply in 2005. I do believe that, between the oil industry and the Saudis and other friends of the Bush Administration*, there are ways the gasoline price, and even the world oil price, could be affected for a few weeks before the election. * E.g., the membership list of Dick Cheney’s energy task force. Except, oh, wait, I forgot – even a lawsuit by the Government Accountability Office could not pry loose that secret list. I don’t know – or claim – this has been done. But we have been taught by this Administration – ‘by far the vast majority’ of whose tax cuts would go to ‘benefit those at the bottom end of the economic ladder’ – to be skeptical. We have been taught by this Administration – in its promise to invade Iraq only as a ‘last resort,’ for our self defense – to be wary. We have been taught by this Administration – that would not exercise its clear authority to keep the California ‘energy crisis’ from draining billions of dollars from California to Texas – to wonder what’s really going on. We have been taught by this Administration – and the Republican Secretaries of State in Florida and Ohio who simultaneously chaired their states’ Bush election efforts – that this crowd will do almost anything to win. Which brings us to . . . VOTER SUPPRESSION From Thursday’s New York Times, in part: One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy. The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have. The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting. Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about. The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people – the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly – are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive. If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer – and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican. Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law. Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan. America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it. It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company ☞ Which brings us here, to find out how to find out whether you’re registered – and where to vote if you are, what kind of ID you’ll need when you get there, and how to become a poll worker. And here to find your state’s deadline for registering. Spread the word.
You Are Cordially Invited to Breakfast with Bishop Tutu, President Karzai and Queen Rania With Lunch to Follow September 22, 2006March 5, 2017 So gasoline prices have come down and people are happy again – just in time for the mid-term election. What a stroke of luck for the oil companies! What a further stroke of luck it would be if prices then went back up after the election. Of course, there’s that old expression about ‘making your own luck.’ But only a cynic would suggest that oil companies have any influence over the price of gasoline. Or that, even if they did, they would ever try to use their influence to help the Administration retain unchecked power (other than with political contributions, which thus far in 2006 exceed $12.5 million, 83% to Republicans). So enough of that. Let us turn to something wonderful: BREAKFAST IS SERVED Yesterday morning, the Clinton Global Initiative in New York featured a breakfast panel with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Queen Rania of Jordan – moderated by Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek. The topic, basically: can we ever learn to live with each other? You can watch it yourself right now (click ‘watch archived video). I watched and found it extraordinary. Informative, hopeful, and moving. Bishop Tutu says, ‘You and I are ultimately made for goodness – and that is what is going to prevail.’ It’s worth taking an hour of your weekend to watch. LUNCH, TOO And then come back for lunch with the CEO of Cisco, the President of Siemens, the (amazing) founder of the Grameen Bank, and a well known former U.S. Vice President. This hour, too, was compelling – and hopeful. Bon appetit.
My Sediments, Exactly September 21, 2006January 10, 2017 ALDABRA For those who may have bought the warrants – around 70 cents when I first suggested them or 36 cents when I next suggested them (‘AL-BA You Dinner If This Works’) – they closed last night at 84 cents and continue to give you the right to buy the underlying stock, ALBA, a dredging company, at $5 a share any time between now and February, 2009. With the stock closing at $5.67 yesterday, that meant people were paying a 17-cent premium over the warrant’s intrinsic value (the right to pay $5 for something worth $5.67 is intrinsically worth 67 cents). In return, they get 29 months to decide whether to exercise their warrants. If the stock craters, they lose 84 cents. If it doubles (and I’m certainly not expecting it to – most stocks don’t double in 29 months), their warrants would be worth about $6.34 each. Reading this extensive Aldabra presentation didn’t help me guess where the stock might go. And, a day or two later, reading this in the New York Times about the need to move the Mississippi River – ‘there would be tremendous engineering challenges, particularly in finding a new way for freighters to make their way into the Mississippi’s shipping channel’ – left me skeptical (they’re going to move the Mississippi river?) . . . but hopeful that it could involve a lot of dredging. THE BILL PRESS SHOW Hey, progressives (and ditto heads who want to get their blood pressure up) – the fledgling Bill Press morning drive-time radio show got a tenfold potential audience boost this week, as it began airing in Chicago (WCPT, 850 AM), San Francisco (KQKE, 960 AM), Minneapolis (KTNF, 950 AM), New Orleans (WSMB, 1350 AM), and elsewhere (Charlottesville, Ithaca, Brattleboro . . .). You know Bill Press from Crossfire, and I know him to be a thoroughly decent guy, standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. (Look! Up in the sky!!!) Probably too decent, in fact, for his show to become a megahit – one seems to need a freakishly large ego and a shameless attraction to the outrageous to score big on radio – but, full disclosure, I will make a buck or two if he does. (So please spend your days sipping Honest Tea, listening to Bill Press – and (switching now from dredging to Borealis) using lots of steel to keep the world price high for when we start mining vast quantities of iron ore, please God, touch wood, feh, feh.)