Adapting to Peak Oil the Hard Way


Have We Really Hit Peak Oil?
And if we have, we had better prepare to change the way we live.
By Richard Heinberg / May 20, 2008

Last week, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would halt a U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia worth $1.4 billion. The implication is clear: no more war toys for the Saudis unless they agree to up their oil output.

The same day, the House approved a Senate plan to suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in hopes of diverting that oil to the market, thus lowering the pump price a tiny amount. A week earlier, a handful of Senators proposed a bill threatening a trade dispute with members of OPEC if the organization doesn’t stop “its anti-competitive practices and illegal export quotas on oil.”

It’s understandable that our elected leaders would want to do something about the meteoric rise of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil prices that are now bankrupting independent truckers and forcing many folks in colder states to choose between being able to stay warm and being able to drive to work. Yet efforts like the ones just mentioned are based on a profound misperception of why oil prices are rising. The real problem is summed up in the phrase “Peak Oil.”

Petroleum is a finite substance and we have reached the inevitable point at which it simply isn’t possible to increase the rate at which we extract it from the ground. Most oil producing countries, including the US, have already seen their glory days and are now watching output from their wells gradually dwindle. Only a few nations are early in the production cycle and able to ramp up the rate of flow. Here is a concise definition of Peak Oil from my colleague Chris Skrebowsi, the editor of Petroleum Review in London. He says: “Global oil production falls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds gains in output from those that are expanding.”

Well, how are we doing? Who’s winning, the decliners or expanders?

According to last year’s scorecard, the decliners won. The same happened in 2006. And that’s with oil prices at record highs, presumably offering every incentive for nations that can produce more oil to do so. Does this mean we are at the all-time peak of global oil flow rates now? Not necessarily. There are large new production projects coming on line this year and next, including one in Saudi Arabia that will add several hundred thousand barrels a day to that nation’s productive capacity.

However, on the other side of the balance there is some very bad news. Russia, the world’s leading oil producing nation and the country that has been responsible for the lion’s share of the world’s production growth over the past decade, has gone into decline. Optimistic analysts hope Russia will be able to keep production more or less flat for a few years, but that may not be possible. The past few months have seen reductions in output. Other important exporting nations like Nigeria and Mexico are also in trouble.

The timing of the global peak may still be unclear. But surely we can’t afford, as a matter of national policy, to assume that it will be decades in the future — given that all of the symptoms are staring us in the face now. Some economists say that current high oil prices are largely due to the falling value of the dollar, or to speculation. Simple arithmetic tells us that dollar depreciation has added only ten or fifteen percent to oil’s cost over the past two to three years.

Read the rest here. / AlterNet

Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

MoveOn Charlie Black, MoveOn

McCain: Fire Charlie Black

McCain Campaign Dogged by Funding, Lobbying Ties
by Peter Overby / May 19, 2008

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, never a smooth or easy operation, is navigating another rough patch.

The Arizona Republican with the maverick reputation finds himself tied to the lobbying industry he once scorned. He’s also short on the big private campaign contributions he used to denigrate and is seeking help from the Federal Election Commission, which he has called despicable.

Despite his well-documented contempt for the usual ways of Washington, McCain is now finding it difficult to get elected president without them. Just last week, he had to impose a new campaign policy — one that’s meant to protect him from the influence of Washington lobbyists.

Less than a month ago, McCain proclaimed in a campaign speech that “we need to close the door firmly on corporate lobbyists.” But by one count, 115 registered lobbyists have been raising money or working for the campaign.

His new campaign policy states that registered lobbyists, registered foreign agents or political consultants with ties to independent political groups cannot work as paid staff or as volunteer advisers. The campaign has acknowledged five departures so far as a result of the lobbying flap — most notably, Tom Loeffler, an old friend and key fundraiser for McCain.

Loeffler lobbies for EADS North America, the U.S. subsidiary of a European-based aircraft manufacturer, which is currently fighting for an Air Force contract. He also counts Saudi Arabia among his clients.

Critics, including the liberal grass-roots group MoveOn.org, say McCain should also fire his senior adviser — veteran lobbyist and political consultant Charlie Black. Although Black quit his lobbying firm to work on the campaign, MoveOn.org is running a TV spot attacking his past record representing foreign governments that abused human rights.

The McCain campaign declined to comment for this story. A campaign spokesman earlier referred to the lobbying issue as “a perception problem.”

McCain Facing Cash Issues, Too

But lobbyists aren’t McCain’s only problem. There’s the question of money.

In 2003, he explained the motives behind the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law this way: “Average Americans are not heard in the legislative process because of the overwhelming influence of special interests, which is fueled by incredible amounts of money that are injected into political campaigns.”

But statements like that are coming back to haunt him.

“The senator has always run on corruption and built his brand name on being against special interests,” says John Samples of the libertarian Cato Institute, who has followed McCain’s career. “But a lot of the people who are in the Republican Party, like anti-abortion groups — they understood very clearly that they were the special-interest groups he was talking about.”

That wariness has affected McCain’s fundraising, and he’s campaigning on a shoestring. The financial picture has improved somewhat since he presumably clinched the nomination this spring. But as recently as December, McCain was being out-fundraised 2 to 1 by Ron Paul, the biggest maverick in the race.

Samples says: “A sort of long-term Republican activist asked me this morning as we were coming in to work, ‘When is McCain’s fundraising going to take off?’ And my answer was, ‘Well, it hasn’t yet and I think it may well not.’ “

McCain’s financial problems are visible on their own, but they’re especially stark when compared with the fundraising of the Democratic primary contenders, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and, even more so, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

“My God, he’s raised a quarter of a billion dollars already,” David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University, says of Obama.

Rohde points out that Obama’s campaign is increasingly fueled by small donors. But he says McCain has a weak base of small-dollar givers, “and therefore he has to rely more on large donors, which means relying on exactly the same kind of Republican fundraising apparatus that he restricted through the campaign finance reform laws.”

McCain and Public Financing for the Fall

McCain’s financial plight also is pushing him to take public financing for the fall campaign. The federal grant would exceed $84 million, and he plans to supplement that heavily with funding from the cash-rich Republican National Committee. Still, both Clinton and Obama seem well-positioned to surpass that number easily and without using public funds.

Public financing presents also McCain with yet another conflict. He’s railed against the Federal Election Commission for years. In 2004, on the CBS program Face the Nation, he said, “We have a Federal Elections Commission which is disgraceful and despicable in its conduct.”

The FEC had been nonfunctional since January, because of a Senate deadlock over nominations. But the deadlock broke last week. It’s good news for McCain, because only the FEC can vote to release the federal money for his fall campaign.

But it’s bad news, too. FEC Chairman David Mason has questioned whether McCain has complied with public financing rules for the primaries.

The reconstituted commission also can vote on taking up that issue.

Source. / All Things Considered / NPR
Documentation for video / MoveOn.org

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Peace Movement’s Many Faces

Photo by Alice Embree / The Rag Blog

The third Friday of every month has been designated Iraq Moratorium day, and this past Friday, May 16, 2008, was the ninth Iraq Moratorium. Every week thousands of demonstrators throughout the country participate in vigils and direct actions and street theater events on campuses, in small towns and villages, on big city streets.

Above, a silent vigil was held in front of the Texas state capitol building in Austin, with participants from Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS/Austin), CodePink and other groups. The following is a story about a unique bit of agit prop in Madison, Wisc.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog


We Mourn the Dead from Iraq
By Joy First

As part of the Iraq Moratorium, eight activists in Madison, WI participated in a solemn vigil at Hilldale Mall on May 16, 2008, calling for an end to the war and occupation in Iraq. This was, in the words of Gandhi, “an experiment in truth” as we pushed to see how far we could go in speaking out against the utter devastation and the crippling suffering of the people of Iraq. Two of us had been in court the day before and were found guilty of trespassing after we were arrested for speaking out against the war at Hilldale Mall in February.

Three of us wore paper mache masks of Iraqi women and long dark gowns and we carried paper mache babies, one who was severely hurt. The masks sat on the top of our heads with scarves over the back of the masks that hung down and came around covering our faces. We could only see faintly as we looked through the light-weight fabric over our face. The expressions on the faces of the masks, the Iraqi women, were haunting.

The other five people in our group handed out leaflets about the suffering of Iraqi women, and carried signs saying “We mourn the dead from Iraq’ as we walked in a slow and solemn procession through the mall. We planned to stay there and march for one hour from 5:30-6:30 pm unless we were arrested before then. There were not a lot of people inside the mall, but those who were seemed very interested in our procession and gratefully accepted a leaflet. A good number thanked us for being there or made other positive comments. It was a very powerful experience, very sad, wearing the masks and carrying the babies who were hurt. I have been spending a lot of time with my grandchildren, including my newest granddaughter, Linnea, just one week old on the day of our action, and I was feeling very emotional thinking about the suffering of the children of Iraq.

Mall security asked us to leave and said we could march outside (which was surprising because I believe that is still private property). We went outside because there were a lot of people eating at outside seating at several restaurants adjoining the mall and we were able to walk by them and hand out leaflets.

When we walked back inside the mall, we met the police and they told us we must leave. We decided to go outside again and the police told us we could stay there as long as wanted, but if we came back inside, there would be a physical arrest. I asked the police if this wasn’t private property outside the mall, and the police said it was not, but I believe they are wrong about that. They explained a physical arrest would mean they would handcuff us, transport us downtown, book us, and we would have to pay bail to be released. We were surprised to hear this. We follow the principles and guidelines of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others doing nonviolent civil resistance to speak out against the war crimes of our government.

The police in Madison have always arrested us, wrote a citation on the spot, and released us. When we asked why they would respond with a physical arrest, they said that when the bad behavior continues, they have to take us in. Bad behavior??!!?? Us??!!?? I wonder when someone in law enforcement will have the guts to arrest Bush and his cronies for their bad behavior – war crimes against humanity. We walked for a few more minutes and at 6:30 we left the mall. However, we plan to return and continue our commitment to work for peace, calling attention to the devastating human suffering resulting from the crimes of our government.

For new of more events from Iraq Moritorium 9, go to IraqMoratorium.org.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

M. Wizard : David Lee Powell and the Question of "Closure"

The Austin American-Statesman carried the following AP news dispatch this past Sunday, May 18, 2008.

A man sent to death row three times for killing an Austin police officer with an automatic assault weapon almost 30 years ago has won permission to appeal his case again.

David Lee Powell, now 57, most recently was convicted and condemned in 1999 for the 1978 slaying of Ralph Ablanedo, who had pulled over Powell’s girlfriend for a traffic stop near downtown Austin for not having a rear license tag. Powell was a passenger in the car.

In a ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges agreed that Powell may pursue three claims of appeal, including one that could give him a complete new trial rather than a new punishment trial.

He is claiming his rights were violated because prosecutors didn’t disclose in a timely way documents that showed Powell’s girlfriend may have fired the shots at the slain officer and tossed a hand grenade and fired at other officers when she was arrested, and because an emergency room doctor didn’t provide Miranda warnings to Powell when he examined Powell after his arrest and then testified for the prosecution at Powell’s trial.

The paper also ran two articles by staff writer Tony Plohetski: “Officer’s death 30 years ago still remembered” and ”Waiting for justice: Mother of Austin officer killed 30 years ago today wants killer executed.”

Mariann Wizard, a regular contributor to The Rag Blog who knew Powell when he was a student at the University of Texas at Austin, took issue with the Statesman’s reporting and submitted the following in response. Not expecting the Statesman to run it, she is also posting it here.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog

Death Cannot “Pay For” Life Cut Short
By Mariann Wizard / May 19, 2008 / The Rag Blog

The 1978 murder of Austin policeman Ralph Ablanedo was a tragedy. However, the death penalty David Lee Powell faces will not change it; nor bring “closure” to Ablanedo’s family and friends.

Through Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation, I’ve learned of many who, like Ablanedo’s mother, clung for years to retribution, yet found it hollow. No life is “paid for” by death. Mrs. Ablanedo is the victim not only of a crime which took her son, but of a cruel hoax by death penalty supporters, especially the Austin Police Association. Police and prosecutors often surround victims’ family members with a “protective” presence, within which the death penalty is the only way to re-balance the scales of Justice. If the victim is a police officer, “making an example” is the real goal.

The Austin American-Statesman hasn’t the excuse of motherly grief for its lack of objectivity. Could you not make an effort to discover if Powell has family or friends who will mourn him? (He does.) Could you not ask some group which opposes the death penalty, or some mainstream cleric, to comment? Seven short sentences and two photos – in a story two pages long – don’t tell “Who is David Lee Powell”.

I knew him as a polite, genial, bright young student. Methampethamine is still around; back then, we said, “Speed kills.” Powell was clearly deranged when he and/or his girlfriend killed Ablanedo. It would have been hard for a jury to find him insane, however, in a courtroom filled with uniformed APD officers, as it was also at his re-sentencing hearing in 1999!

APA spokesman Mike Sheffield says David “has… enjoyed… seeing his family and visiting and doing all those things that officer Ablanedo has not.” David’s mother, Marjorie Powell, a respected anti-death penalty advocate, died a few years ago, grief-stricken. David has, I believe, one, infrequent, visitor. As for “all those things” Ralph Ablanedo cannot do that Powell allegedly enjoys, Texas’ Death House is not known for its amenities. Yes, life itself is a gift. But we are not its Giver; nor is the State of Texas.

My husband, George Vizard, an anti-war and civil rights crusader, was murdered here in 1967. Fourteen years passed before Robert Zani, named to police the day after George died, was charged and convicted. He married, had children, and allegedly committed other murders. A Supreme Court moratorium on the death penalty made it a non-option in his case, but neither George’s parents nor myself would have supported it; it would have negated everything George – and we – believed about the sanctity of life.

George’s mother thinks of him every day, as I do, but those thoughts are not blighted by hate and anger! We keep bright the love and joy of him, and are grateful we had him for a while; we don’t seek a false “closure”. Zani is serving 99 years in Huntsville. This is good. Nothing can restore what he took from us, and I am myself incapable of desiring the reconciliation some MVFR members have found, but we won’t have his blood staining our hands, or George’s memory.

Shame on the Statesman for so uncritically exhorting us to state-sponsored bloodlust!

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Picking an Obama Running Mate

How about Obama-Webb?

Building the Best Winning Ticket:
Who’s the Progressive VP Choice?

By Tom Hayden / May 18, 2008

[Tom Hayden has written this piece to initiate a discussion among progressives about the Democratic ticket. The Progressives for Obama website is running a poll among the candidates below and invites our participation. The site also includes consistently interesting material. –.td]

Progressives should weigh in now on the vice-presidential choices facing Barack Obama. If all progressives are united for or against a particular candidate, we can be a factor in the mix ahead.

The choice needs to be someone who [a] wins a state or two that Obama might not win on his own, [b] wins over the Clinton voter constituency, and [c] can placate traditional party leaders.

But from a progressive perspective, the choice also should be someone with Obama’s instinct for organizing a majority progressive movement, not someone who revives the fading pro-business, pro-war DLC. The ticket should excite even more people around Obama’s vision of a reclaimed democracy from below, not someone who will dampen the enthusiasm. Here are my thoughts:

1) BILL RICHARDSON could help win New Mexico and Colorado, and increase overall Obama turnout among Latinos. Good credentials. Good on issues. Able to ensure that the Obama Administration pays attention to Latin America. Needs to be vetted further. Conventional wisdom is that a “two-fer” [black and brown] won’t work. Go for it unless the vetting turns up problems, otherwise give him a Cabinet post.

2) JAMES WEBB. Good credentials: military, former Republican, Navy Secretary under Reagan. Relatively good on issues like war, economy, outsider and independent. Might mean losing Virginia Senate seat in future. But if he guarantees Virginia for Obama and helps in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, take the chance.

3) JOHN EDWARDS. Attorney General, not VP.

4) HILLARY CLINTON. While she has to be on the short list, and while weird bedfellows are not unusual, this is to be avoided if at all possible. The incompatibilities are too great, and the turnoff factor would be a problem. It is not clear that she would bring a state that Obama couldn’t capture on his own, assuming that many Hillary voters turn to McCain. She might prefer her independence in the Senate.

[Proposed Clinton surrogates include TED STRICKLAND, EVAN BAYH, and WESLEY CLARK, shadows of the DLC. WEBB might do as well as Strickland in Ohio. Bayh not likely to carry Indiana. Clark brings military credentials and has close relationship with Obama’s former advisor Samantha Power, but will he carry Arkansas or any other state?]

Source. / Progressives for Obama

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Gore Vidal on Obama and Clinton

I knew JFK, says Gore Vidal, and believe me Obama’s the better leader

Gore Vidal, the writer and long-time Clinton supporter, tells why Hillary is insane to keep on fighting

By Melvyn Bragg / May 18, 2008

At 82, Gore Vidal has reached an enviable position: he is an influential man of letters, a political activist, a scion of the New World aristocracy and a friend of the powerful and famous, including the Clintons.

So what does he think of Hillary Clinton’s stated intention to fight on to the bitter end for the Democratic presidential nomination? The reply is instant and searing: “I think her strategy is more or less insane.”

He continues: “I’d always rather liked her. She’s a perfectly able lawyer . . . But this long campaign, this daily search for the grail, has driven her crazy.”

In his view Barack Obama has won; and if the nomination is taken away from him, “I fear what our black population might do. There has never been a revolution of blacks – yet”.

During the Clinton administration, Vidal admired Bill’s understanding of the poor and of black people. His devotion to the Clintons has now been laid aside, however. By clinging on to her campaign, waiting for the small chance that Obama will make a terminal mistake, Hillary has crossed a line, he believes.

As for Obama, Vidal has taken time to warm to him. “I liked the idea of him, but he never managed to get my interest. I was brought around by his overall intelligence – specifically when he did his speech on race and religion.”

In Vidal’s opinion, “he’s our best demagogue since Huey Long or Martin Luther King”.

I ask if he thinks Obama has a similar charisma to that of John F Kennedy, whom Vidal got to know because he was related to his wife, Jackie.

“I never believed in Jack’s charisma,” Vidal says shortly. JFK, he believes, was “one of our worst presidents”; Bobby, his brother, was “a phoney, a little Torquemada”; and their father, Joseph, was “a crook – should have been in jail”.

So much for Camelot. “But Jack had great charm,” he adds. “So has Obama. He’s better educated than Jack. And he’s been a working senator. Jack never went to the office – he wanted the presidency and his father bought it for him.”
There’s no guarantee, of course, that the Democrats will triumph later this year, even if Obama does win the nomination. Does he think Obama can beat John McCain?

His views on the man the Democratic candidate will have to beat are even more brutal than his views on Hillary: “ You could beat McCain! I’ve never met anyone in America who has the slightest respect for him. He went to a private school and came bottom of his class. He smashed up his aeroplane and became a prisoner of war, which he is trying to parlay into ‘war hero’.”

In his view, McCain is “a goddamned fool. He was on television talking about mortgages, and it was quite clear he does not know what a mortgage is. His head rattles as he walks”.

However, in Vidal’s eyes, McCain is just a symptom of the real malaise affecting America today: the cynical subversion of the US constitution. “The Bush people”, he says, “have virtually got rid of Magna Carta and habeas corpus. In a normal republic I would probably have raised an army and overthrown them. It will take a hundred years to put it all back.”

By now he has worked himself up to a crisp fury: “Those neocons, lawyers, the big corporations – worse than that, extremists – want to get rid of the great power of oversight of the executive. See what they’ll try to do to Obama. They’re crooks. They’re just gangsters. They are the enemy of the United States. There’s no such thing as a war on terrorism. It’s idiotic. There are slogans. It’s advertising, which is the only art form we’ve invented and developed. It’s lies.”

Vidal has never been less than fully engaged with the politics of his country – but he seems angrier than I have ever seen him before. This may be because he has returned to live in the States only recently, after spending more than 30 years in Italy. He seems revived and refreshed by his furious reengagement with American politics.

For him, the biggest lie has always been to keep quiet; and the best life-enhancer is to provoke, unsettle, rile – in short, to make people face the truth. He remains a rarity.

Source. / Sunday Times, U.K.

Thanks to Steve Russell / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Right Question Is, "Should He Be President?"


What Are We Waiting For? Politicians Promise Change, but Not Necessarily Political Reforms
By Joel Hirschhorn / May 19, 2008

Long before the disastrous George W. Bush administration, I had been waiting for profound, systemic changes in our political system. Perversely, I saw the upside of Bush as motivating more Americans to demand political change. And that happened. But the national yearning for change was co-opted by Ron Paul on the right and Barack Obama on the left while John Edwards with the most authentic populist change message fizzled out early.

It is not enough to want, demand and support change, not when change is more of a campaign slogan than a carefully detailed set of reforms. Critically needed is a firm understanding of what specific changes can restore American democracy and remove the privileged rich plutocrats and corporatists running and ruining our nation.

A huge fraction of Americans have bought into the Obama candidacy because of his polished and effective rhetoric. But Obama does not offer the changes I have been waiting for, or the ones the public needs. A great speaker does not necessarily have the courage or intent to fight for deep political reforms.

Our nation’s Founders did not create the United States of America just with smiles and slick rhetoric; they were bold, risk-taking revolutionaries fighting tyranny. Obama has not defined our domestic tyranny and told us how he will try to abolish it. Obama is no dissident or revolutionary. The change he mostly seeks is moving from senator to president. Not what I have been waiting for.

There is no evidence in Obama’s brief political career that he is a champion for deep political reforms to transfer power from the plutocrats to the people. To the contrary, the more you learn about Obama’s history the more he appears as just another super-ambitious politician making friends, using people and cutting deals to get ahead.

Read the rest of ithere. / Associated Content

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | Leave a comment

Microsoft = Corruption

So says one principled Hungarian fellow. Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer reacted by ducking behind a desk when a Hungarian man unleashed a verbal and egg-filled tirade today during a lecture at a Budapest university.

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Housing Bubble: Eventually Reality Intrudes

Can’t wait to see ALL of Chillhowee Mountain covered with Commercial Development.

It’s already a buyer’s market in some places…. BIG TIME!

Almost makes one wanna’ be a land baron. Almost.

But then, land barons of the slum-lord variety are only one evolutionary incremental wiggle removed from vultures, and as injured as my self-esteem has been for much of my life, I’m desperately trying to repair what’s left. In honor of that, I’m not sure that falling into the role of a bloody-toothed, evil-smiling, grinning-and-sneering vulture would lend itself to such already difficult efforts toward finding some sense of personal peace in the grand ol’ universe.

Otherwise, it sounds like a heck of a deal; making bank on the desperation, losses, sacrifices, sweat, toil, and destitution of others. How much more Amerikan could one get??

What’d GW call this, again??… Oh yeah.. He called it a ‘slow down.’ As in, “Slow down before you plummet over that cliff, ’cause it’s a LONG drop from there….”

Dirk Nelson / The Rag Blog

P.S.- I’d wager heavily that this same set of circumstances can be found in a number of U.S. communities this evening. And even more tomorrow. ‘Slow down,’ my keister!! This is likely to make the Crash of 1929 look pretty derned friendly when it’s all said and done… That’s my wager, as well.

The $10,000 Atlanta Houses
by Gary North

You read that right. You can buy a house in Atlanta for $10,000.

That’s if you’re a high roller. How about one for $5,900?

Whenever you see something like this, you should think to yourself: “This sounds crazy; so, the government has to be involved.” This may be incorrect, but you will save a lot of time barking up wrong trees by starting with this assumption.

In this case, it’s a conclusion, not just an assumption. I will get to this later on. But first. . . .

A PARALYZED SYSTEM

There are a dozen houses listed by local real estate agents that you can buy for $10,000 per home. You can buy ten times as many if you are willing to pay $20,000.

How can this be? It is true that we are somewhere in the unwinding of a housing market that has suffered from mania. But this is more than unwinding.

There are foreclosures. But how can prices fall this far? Aren’t there any bidders at $10,000? The answer is simple: no. Are these houses abandoned? Probably. Well, abandoned by their original owners. They may not be abandoned by local entrepreneurs in the pharmaceutical trade.

When I first read about this, I noticed that the article did not use the code words that immediately pop into the typical reader’s mind – words associated with the now-illegal bank practice of “redlining.” There are some neighborhoods that are high risk. Yet, even here, people rent. They don’t rent for $50 a month. So, why don’t renters see an opportunity? They could go to the seller – a bank – and offer to buy the place for no money down and then fix it up. If they have any repair skills, they could make a good case. That is surely a better deal for the renter and the banker than having the house sit empty.

Please don’t tell me they aren’t smart enough. Those previously mentioned entrepreneurs are very sophisticated in matters financial. Some gangs demonstrate remarkable abilities to handle positive cash flow. People on the street know what things cost and who is profiting.

Yet the houses are not selling. If I worked for a foreclosing bank or lending agency, I would go to local pastors and suggest an arrangement. I would try to sell them houses as investments. They have money. Failing this, I would encourage them to locate church members who would like a place to own. In short, I would make a deal. I would get the houses off the books. These houses are not doing the foreclosing agencies any good standing empty.

If nothing else, I would go to Habitat for Humanity or the Fuller Center for Housing, both headquartered in Georgia. I would find out if they could do something with the properties, such as buy them, scrap them, and build new houses.

The fact that this has not been done indicates that there is a terrible paralysis in the foreclosure process. This paralysis points to government regulation. It also points to corporate centralization. Nobody at the local level is being offered incentives to get these properties off the books.

This problem is not confined to Atlanta. I speak from recent experience.

I plan to buy a house next year in an Atlanta suburb. If prices fall enough, I will buy more than one. So, I sent my wife to the area in early May to see how the foreclosure market is doing. She found out.

She went to the courthouse steps to view the auction for foreclosed properties. The sellers had all posted minimum bids. One by one, the houses were offered for sale. There was not one bid. This meant that the asking price was the high bid. Every house went back to the foreclosing lender.

These houses were not priced to sell. They were priced to subsidize the local pharmaceutical trade. “You want free rent? You’ve got it!”

One house that caught my attention was foreclosed last December. The bank is unwilling to drop the price below $250,000. So, it keeps buying it back.

I subscribe to RealtyTrac. It costs $50 a month, but it saves me time, which is valuable. It lists some 250 bank-owned properties in the town I am looking at. Some of these properties have been on the banks’ books for over a year. There is an occasional SOLD entry: maybe one out of every 30 houses listed.

As the housing slowdown continues, and as prices slowly fall because a few sellers become desperate, the number of foreclosed houses in inventory will serve as a constant source of houses in competition with sellers of owner-occupied houses. At some point, the banks holding these foreclosed homes off the market will decide to price them to sell.

When that happens, property tax assessors will enter the twilight zone.

In Atlanta, they already have.

Read the rest of it here. / LewRockwell.com

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Massive Obama Rally in Portland

Fire officials estimated 65,000 packed into a riverside park Saturday, Sept. 18, for a spectacular afternoon rally at a sun-splashed scene on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland. They said an additional 15,000 were left outside and dozens of boaters could be seen floating in the river.

“Wow, wow, wow,” Obama said as he surveyed the audience. “We have had a lot of rallies. This is the most spectacular setting, the most spectacular crowd we have had this entire campaign.” (AP)

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Moyers on Democracy


Democracy in America Is a Series of Narrow Escapes, and We May Be Running Out of Luck
by Bill Moyers / May 17, 2008

[The following is an excerpt from Bill Moyers’ new book, “Moyers on Democracy“.]

Democracy in America is a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck. The reigning presumption about the American experience, as the historian Lawrence Goodwyn has written, is grounded in the idea of progress, the conviction that the present is “better” than the past and the future will bring even more improvement. For all of its shortcomings, we keep telling ourselves, “The system works.”

Now all bets are off. We have fallen under the spell of money, faction, and fear, and the great American experience in creating a different future together has been subjugated to individual cunning in the pursuit of wealth and power -and to the claims of empire, with its ravenous demands and stuporous distractions. A sense of political impotence pervades the country — a mass resignation defined by Goodwyn as “believing the dogma of ‘democracy’ on a superficial public level but not believing it privately.” We hold elections, knowing they are unlikely to bring the corporate state under popular control. There is considerable vigor at local levels, but it has not been translated into new vistas of social possibility or the political will to address our most intractable challenges. Hope no longer seems the operative dynamic of America, and without hope we lose the talent and drive to cooperate in the shaping of our destiny.

The earth we share as our common gift, to be passed on in good condition to our children’s children, is being despoiled. Private wealth is growing as public needs increase apace. Our Constitution is perilously close to being consigned to the valley of the shadow of death, betrayed by a powerful cabal of secrecy-obsessed authoritarians. Terms like “liberty” and “individual freedom” invoked by generations of Americans who battled to widen the 1787 promise to “promote the general welfare” have been perverted to create a government primarily dedicated to the welfare of the state and the political class that runs it. Yes, Virginia, there is a class war and ordinary people are losing it. It isn’t necessary to be a Jeremiah crying aloud to a sinful Jerusalem that the Lord is about to afflict them for their sins of idolatry, or Cassandra, making a nuisance of herself as she wanders around King Priam’s palace grounds wailing “The Greeks are coming.” Or Socrates, the gadfly, stinging the rump of power with jabs of truth. Or even Paul Revere, if horses were still in fashion. You need only be a reporter with your eyes open to see what’s happening to our democracy. I have been lucky enough to spend my adult life as a journalist, acquiring a priceless education in the ways of the world, actually getting paid to practice one of my craft’s essential imperatives: connect the dots.

The conclusion that we are in trouble is unavoidable. I report the assault on nature evidenced in coal mining that tears the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers, sacrificing the health and lives of those in the river valleys to short-term profit, and I see a link between that process and the stock-market frenzy which scorns long-term investments — genuine savings — in favor of quick turnovers and speculative bubbles whose inevitable bursting leaves insiders with stuffed pockets and millions of small stockholders, pensioners, and employees out of work, out of luck, and out of hope.

And then I see a connection between those disasters and the repeal of sixty-year-old banking and securities regulations designed during the Great Depression to prevent exactly that kind of human and economic damage. Who pushed for the removal of that firewall? An administration and Congress who are the political marionettes of the speculators, and who are well rewarded for their efforts with indispensable campaign contributions. Even honorable opponents of the practice get trapped in the web of an electoral system that effectively limits competition to those who can afford to spend millions in their run for office. Like it or not, candidates know that the largesse on which their political futures depend will last only as long as their votes are satisfactory to the sleek “bundlers” who turn the spigots of cash on and off.

The property qualifications for federal office that the framers of the Constitution expressly chose to exclude for demonstrating an unseemly “veneration for wealth” are now de facto in force and higher than the Founding Fathers could have imagined. “Money rules Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us.” Those words were spoken by Populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease during the prairie revolt that swept the Great Plains slightly more than 120 years after the Constitution was signed. They are true today, and that too, spells trouble.

Then I draw a line to the statistics that show real wages lagging behind prices, the compensation of corporate barons soaring to heights unequaled anywhere among industrialized democracies, the relentless cheeseparing of federal funds devoted to public schools, to retraining for workers whose jobs have been exported, and to programs of food assistance and health care for poor children, all of which snatch away the ladder by which Americans with scant means but willing hands and hearts could work and save their way upward to middle-class independence. And I connect those numbers to our triumphant reactionaries’ campaigns against labor unions and higher minimum wages, and to their success in reframing the tax codes so as to strip them of their progressive character, laying the burdens of Atlas on a shrinking middle class awash in credit card debt as wage earners struggle to keep up with rising costs for health care, for college tuitions, for affordable housing — while huge inheritances go untouched, tax shelters abroad are legalized, rates on capital gains are slashed, and the rich get richer and with each increase in their wealth are able to buy themselves more influence over those who make and those who carry out the laws.

Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists: “No one can eliminate prejudices — just recognize them.” Here is my bias: extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a genuinely democratic politics. When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people as a whole, it mocks the very concept of government as proclaimed in the preamble to our Constitution; mocks Lincoln’s sacred belief in “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”; mocks the democratic notion of government as “a voluntary union for the common good” embodied in the great wave of reform that produced the Progressive Era and the two Roosevelts. In contrast, the philosophy popularized in the last quarter century that “freedom” simply means freedom to choose among competing brands of consumer goods, that taxes are an unfair theft from the pockets of the successful to reward the incompetent, and that the market will meet all human needs while government itself becomes the enabler of privilege — the philosophy of an earlier social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism dressed in new togs — is as subversive as Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of the Revolution he had once served. Again, Mary Lease: “The great evils which are cursing American society and undermining the foundations of the republic flow not from the legitimate operation of the great human government which our fathers gave us, but they come from tramping its plain provisions underfoot.”

Our democracy has prospered most when it was firmly anchored in the idea that “We the People” — not just a favored few — would identify and remedy common distempers and dilemmas and win the gamble our forebears undertook when they espoused the radical idea that people could govern themselves wisely. Whatever and whoever tries to supplant that with notions of a wholly privatized society of competitive consumers undermines a country that, as Gordon S. Wood puts it in his landmark book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, discovered its greatness “by creating a prosperous free society belonging to obscure people with their workaday concerns and their pecuniary pursuits of happiness” — a democracy that changed the lives of “hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people.”

I wish I could say that journalists in general are showing the same interest in uncovering the dangerous linkages thwarting this democracy. It is not for lack of honest and courageous individuals who would risk their careers to speak truth to power — a modest risk compared to those of some journalists in authoritarian countries who have been jailed or murdered for the identical “crime.” But our journalists are not in control of the instruments they play. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and networks, and profit rather than product becomes the focus of corporate effort, news organizations — particularly in television — are folded into entertainment divisions. The “news hole” in the print media shrinks to make room for advertisements, and stories needed by informed citizens working together are pulled in favor of the latest celebrity scandals because the media moguls have decided that uncovering the inner workings of public and private power is boring and will drive viewers and readers away to greener pastures of pabulum. Good reporters and editors confront walls of resistance in trying to place serious and informative reports over which they have long labored. Media owners who should be sounding the trumpets of alarm on the battlements of democracy instead blow popular ditties through tin horns, undercutting the basis for their existence and their First Amendment rights.

[Texan Bill Moyers is the author of many books including “Moyers on Democracy” (Doubleday, 2008) and the host of the PBS show, Bill Moyers Journal.]

Source. / CommonDreams

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | 1 Comment

Awash in Way Too Many Radishes


Picture courtesy Mariann Wizard. She writes, “Great colors, no? Kate & I visited the American Botanical Society gardens the other day and they were awash in way too many radishes.”

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged | Leave a comment