WISHES, FANTASIES, DELUSIONS & DUMBASSES

13 comments

Posted on 29th April 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

The shallowness of MSM faux journalists and the utter ignorance of the American populace is a match made in delusional heaven. Kunstler takes a big old shit on this party of dumbasses.

We Wish

By James Howard Kunstler
on April 29, 2013 9:07 AM
 
       Wishful thinking now runs so thick and deep across the USA that our hopes for a credible future are being drowned in a tidal wave of yellow smiley-face stories recklessly issued by institutions that ought to know better. A case in point is the Charles C. Mann’s tragically dumb cover story in the current Atlantic magazine — “We Will Never Run Out of Oil” * — setting out in great detail the entire panoply of techno-narcissistic “solutions” to our energy predicament. Another case in point was senior financial writer Joe Nocera’s moronic op-ed in last week’s New York Times beating the drum for American “energy independence.”
 
       You could call these two examples mendacious if it weren’t so predictable that a desperate society would do everything possible to defend its sunk costs, including the making up of fairy tales to justify its wishes. Instead, they’re merely tragic because the zeitgeist now requires once-honorable forums of a free press to indulge in self-esteem building rather than truth-telling. It also represents a culmination of the political correctness disease that has terminally disabled the professional thinking class for the last three decades, since this feel-good propaganda comes from the supposedly progressive organs of the media — and, of course, the cornucopian view has been a staple of the idiot right wing media forever. We have become a nation incapable of thinking, or at least of constructing a consensus that jibes with reality. In not a very few years, the American public will be so disappointed and demoralized by broken promises like these that they will turn the nation upside down and inside out, probably with violence and bloodshed.
 
Charles Mann’s Atlantic article begins by cheerleading for the mining of methane hydrates from the ocean floor. These are natural gas molecules trapped in ice formations in the muck around the continental shelves. Mann spotlights the efforts of a Japanese research ship conducting tests. Guess what: the Japanese are engaging in this because they have absolutely no fossil fuels of their own, and a failing consensus about nuclear power, and they are on a course to become the first advanced industrial nation to be forced to return to a medieval economy. That is, they are the most desperate among the desperate. You could say they’ve got nothing to lose (but a few billion of their rapidly depreciating Yen).
 
Methane hydrates are stable only at extreme pressures or very low temperatures. They also exist in the arctic permafrost, for instance, Siberia, where conventional natural gas drilling operations have been carried out for decades, with no contributions from methane hydrates. Undersea methane hydrate exploration projects have gone on for decades in the US, Canada, India, Russia, China, and Japan. The hope is that this so-called “hot ice” would turn out to be the gas equivalent of tar sands, which would mean at best a very expensive way to get more fossil fuels as the conventional sources dry up. That hope has dimmed in nations other than extremely desperate Japan. Like a lot of techno-wonders, the recovery of methane hydrates can be demonstrated on the “science project” scale. For now, no viable technique exists for getting commercially-scaled streams of natural gas out of methane hydrates. The Japanese themselves state that it would take at least ten years, if ever, to commercially mine methane hydrates. Japan doesn’t have ten years. It’s banking system is imploding, and without capital even the science projects will come to an end.
Charles Mann is equally rapturous about shale oil and gas. He writes:
 
“Today, though, fracking is unleashing torrents of oil in North Dakota and Texas–it may create a second boom in the San Joaquin Valley–and floods of natural gas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. So bright are the fracking prospects that the U.S. may become, if only briefly, the world’s top petroleum producer. (“Saudi America,” crowed The Wall Street Journal. But the parallel is inexact, because the U.S. is likely to consume most of its bonanza at home, rather than exporting it.)”
 
    This is very misleading. The US consumes roughly 19 million barrels a day. The Bakken and Eagle Ford shale formations produce about a million barrels a day combined now, and guaranteed to get a whole lot lower within the next five years. Today’s near-peak production is based on furious drilling and fracking of extremely expensive wells — known as “the Red Queen syndrome” because they are running as fast as they can to keep production up. Meanwhile, the depletion curve on shale oil is a reverse “hockey stick.” 
 
 
Bakken decline graph.jpg
 
      The situation is similar for shale gas, the difference being that the temporary glut of 2005 – 2012 happened because we didn’t have the means to export surplus gas from the initial burst of development and it briefly flooded the domestic market. The price of shale gas is still below the level that makes it economic to produce and when it eventually rises to that level, and beyond, it will be too expensive for its customers to buy. Shale gas is also subject to the Red Queen Syndrome.
 
      These arguments have been well-rehearsed many times in this blog and elsewhere. But the key to understanding our energy predicament is ignored in cornucopian cases like Charles Mann’s Atlantic piece, which is the role of capital. Non-cheap oil has already worked its hoodoo on advanced industrial economies: it has already destroyed the process of capital formation. These economies were not designed to run on non-cheap oil and they can’t, and the capital is no longer there for even the research-and-development to change out the infrastructure, let alone carry out any as-yet-undesigned changes. Furthermore, there is no prospect that we can rescue the process of capital formation at the scale required to continue financing things like shale oil. The absence of real growth in the USA, Europe, and Japan has already destroyed the operations of interest and repayment of debt, and any new debt issued will never be repaid, meaning it is functionally worthless (we just don’t know it yet). These impairments of capital formation have left the major commercial banks insolvent and central banks have worked tirelessly to rescue them by issuing more “money” in the form of credit that can never be paid back.
 
       What all this means is that the capital does not exist to run non-cheap oil economies, or to continue indefinitely the production of non-cheap oil and gas, not to mention methane hydrates and other fantasy fuels.
 
     Joe Nocera’s op-ed in last week’s New York Times was shorter and even dumber (and lazier) than Charles Mann’s foolish Atlantic article. It was based on remarks made by Canada’s Energy Minister, Joe Oliver, who said (among other patently false and idiotic things) that Canada “has the resources to meet all of America’s future needs for oil.” Oliver was pimping for the Keystone pipeline project to transport tar sands byproducts from Alberta down to the US. Nocera swallowed everything Oliver said whole, such as “oil mined from the sands is simply not as environmentally disastrous as opponents like to claim.”  Is that so, Joe? And what’s your source for that assertion? Canada’s Energy Minister? The slug at the bottom of Nocera’s column said he was invited onto the op-ed page because regular columnists Gail Collins and Nicholas Kristoff were off (or on book leave). Nocera’s column was disgracefully ignorant. The editors should send him back to the Times business section where unreality is the order-of-the-day.
 
      Now, many people may draw the conclusion that some conspiracy is underway when the major mainstream media report the news so disingenuously, but that is just not so. The reason we, in effect, lie to ourselves incessantly is because of the master wish behind all the subsidiary wishes: we want to keep driving to WalMart forever and we can’t imagine any other way of life, let alone the way of life that the contraction of industrial economies is tending toward — which is to say a way, way downscaled and re-localized economic life centered on farming and artisanal manufacture. Yes, we are going medieval too, eventually, just like the Japanese, who will get there a little sooner than we will. It’s hard to swallow, I’m sure. That’s why we prefer the more digestible propaganda gummi bear treats like Charles Mann’s Atlantic article and Joe Nocera’s stupid op ed.
 
* This was the title on The Atlantic’s cover. Charle’s C. Mann’s article inside was titled “Why We Will Never Run Out of Oil.” Shame on the editors of The Atlantic.

LIBERAL LYNCH MOB AFTER BEN CARSON

13 comments

Posted on 15th April 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Are liberals the most predicatable creatures on earth? It seems so. Anyone who points out the stupidity and idiocy of their thought process and results of their policies is immediately attacked savagely with the usual screaming and propaganda assault from the liberal MSM like the NYT and MSNBC. The liberal media don’t like that uppity negro – Ben Carson – daring to dance to a different tune regarding black suppression and the welfare state policies that have enslaved blacks in poverty and self pity. The nerve of this guy, being raised in a poor neighborhood by a single mother and becoming a world reknowned surgeon, without using the race card. The leg tinglers at MSNBC and the rest of the liberal MSM are on a mission to destroy the good doctor before he can gain traction as a political candidate. The liberal lynch mob want to silence him the way they silenced Bill Cosby for speaking the truth about black culture and the violence it incites. Liberals are the most predictable of beasts.

Ben Carson endures predictable liberal assault

Sunday, April 14,2013

 Dr. Ben Carson stepped into the national spotlight in February, when, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast to an audience that included President Barack Obama, he openly criticized the president’s approach to health care and his overall management of the nation’s economy.

Carson, who is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is a hero to many. His rise from a Detroit ghetto to a life of accomplishment and distinction is a story of American ideals on steroids.

Those ideals say that America is about merit, not circumstance. Your life, your achievements are the result of what you do and how you live, not where you came from.

The hard history of blacks in America has always made it a challenge for them to accept this credo. Many still carry a sense that those ideals may be true for whites, but they never were true, and still aren’t true, for blacks.

So in this context, Carson’s story is particularly important. It’s making liberals nervous, and the attacks on him are starting.

He’s now pulled out, under pressure, from giving the commencement address at Johns Hopkins University because some are unhappy with how, in an interview on Fox, he expressed his views regarding the importance of maintaining the integrity of traditional marriage.

Blacks have known about Carson for years. I gave his book, “Gifted Hands,” to my daughters to read when they were little girls. A highly acclaimed made-for-TV movie about his life aired in 2009, with Carson played by Oscar-winning actor Cuba Gooding Jr.

But this story of personal responsibility, hard work and traditional values is becoming a political story. It is becoming political because Ben Carson’s American dream story, according to the liberal script, is not supposed to work for blacks.

Carson is the biggest threat to liberals since Bill Cosby got out of line at an NAACP banquet in 2004 in Washington, D.C.

Cosby had the temerity to deliver tough, critical talk about what too many blacks are doing with the freedom that civil rights activists of the 1960’s fought to achieve.

He contrasted the Sixties generation with the new generation of black youths sitting in jail: “These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake.”

Cosby attributed the chaos to a breakdown in values, family and personal responsibility. It’s the last thing the NAACP crowd wanted to hear that night and Cosby paid a price. He was vilified and marginalized until he backed off.

Liberals never take on what black conservatives actually say because they can’t. So the attacks become personal.

Trillions of tax dollars have been poured into black communities over the last half-century, producing virtually no change in the incidence of black poverty.

Yet, Carson, through diligence and traditional values, achieved on his own what those trillions of dollars of government programs were supposed to deliver.

Liberal black writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put the cards on the table in an article about Cosby that appeared in The Atlantic magazine in 2008. The typical black conservative votes for Democrats, he notes, “not out of love for abortion rights … but because he feels…. that the modern-day GOP draws on support of people who hate him.”

Stoking paranoia about racism has always been the strategy of liberals to fend off the political threat of conservative values that so many church-going blacks embrace.

Predictably, Coates has produced a New York Times column on Carson, reducing this great man to the usual caricature of a black empty suit manipulated by white conservatives.

Ben Carson is an accomplished and wealthy man. Americans, certainly black Americans, need him in public life more than he needs to be in public life. Let’s hope the left wing and the haters of traditional morality don’t succeed in making him conclude it’s not worth it.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

NYT – PEDDLER OF PROPAGANDA

9 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Hat tip to that mangy cur StuckinNJ, Stucky, FBD, Jesus Son of God, and his 40 other aliases.

Isn’t it ironic that Russia Today provides more truth than the NYT, Wall Street Journal, or Faux News?

ISRAELI PROPAGANDA THROUGH U.S. MSM AT FEVER PITCH

67 comments

Posted on 8th March 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , , , ,

The drumbeats of war grow ever louder. Israel has successfully captured our Congress and has complete control over the corporate mainstream media message. Supposedly liberal media outlets like the NYT and MSNBC are pushing for war with Iran as hard as the neo-cons at Faux News. The lies and misinformation being spewed by politicians and media pundits is at vitriolic all time highs. The ignorant non critical thinking dupes that inhabit this country are being worked into a frenzy of fear over a two bit country that is 7,500 miles from our shores and has no means to hurt our country in any way.

What is the purpose of this propaganda effort? Iran is absolutely no threat to the U.S. or Israel today. They are surrounded by U.S. bases and our navy. Israel has 200 nuclear warheads. Iran has zero. Who is the threat? Our own military and spy agencies have concluded they are not building a nuclear bomb. We have assasinated their scientists. We unleashed a computer virus that will eventually come back and bite us in the ass. We are flying spy drones over their country. Who is the real threat?

My conclusion is that this is really about oil. They have 150 billion barrels of reserves. That is the 4th largest reserve left on the planet. As a comparison, the U.S. has 19 billion barrels of reserves. Peak oil is a fact. Obama knows it. Our military knows it. Wall Street knows it. Big Oil knows it. The corporate mainstream media will do their part in this game of propaganda to perpetuate the Big Lie about Iran as a threat to cover for our true intentions. We want to install a puppet regime in Iran that is friendly to the U.S. and will supply our lifeblood for another 50 years.

We failed in our Iraq venture as the government there hates our fucking guts. They happen to have the 5th largest reserves of 143 billion barrels. The war drums were beating just as loud in 2002. Visions of mushroom clouds over American cities were jammed down our throats by politicians and the media. You would think we would learn. But, you can never go broke betting on the stupidity and gullibility of the American sheeple.

The incomplete media debate on Iran

Americans are continuously bombarded with the claims of Israeli officials while others views on Iran are excluded

Obama and Ehud Barak

Ehud Barak and President Barack Obama  (Credit: AP)

 

(updated below – Update II [Sat.])

On January 25, the New York Times Sunday Magazine published a lengthy article by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman that conveyed the views of multiple Israeli officials about Iran in order to conclude that an Israeli attack is likely. That the entire article was filled with quotes from Israelis meant the piece served as a justification for such an attack while masquerading as a news story about whether the attack would happen. Indeed, the very first paragraph contained this bit of manipulative melodrama: “‘This is not about some abstract concept,’ [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak said as he gazed out at the lights of Tel Aviv, ‘but a genuine concern. The Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map’.” Note that we are told that Barak uttered this article-shaping blatant falsehood “as he gazed out at the lights of Tel Aviv.” So solemn, contemplative and profound.

Yesterday, the NYT published an Op-Ed by Amos Yadlin, one of the Israeli Air Force pilots who attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and then became chief of Israeli military intelligence, arguing for the necessity of an attack on Iran and warning that Israel will do it if President Obama does not give absolute commitments of his intent to do so. Today, the NYT has a news article by incoming Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren summarizing the views of Israeli President Shimon Peres that an attack on Iran is imperative (“This is an unavoidable situation. It’s not exactly the Nazi situation, but my God, what a catastrophe”) and warning Obama that “if the White House [is] not resolute, Israel might have to go it alone.” Also today, the NYT has a news article by outgoing Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner summarizing the views of Netanyahu and other Israeli officials in advance of their meetings this week with Obama: “Israel will not outsource what it views as its vital security interests based on an American promise to take military action if sanctions fail. Israel’s goal is an American attack on Iran, but it seems unlikely to wait till it no longer can do it by itself.”

For months, Americans have been subjected to this continuous, coordinated, repetitive messaging from Israeli officials, amplified through the U.S. media. This is generally how the establishment American media conducts the debate over whether to attack Iran: here are Israeli officials explaining why an attack is urgent and why the U.S. must conduct it. Now here are American officials explaining why an attack can wait a little while longer but that it will happen if necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Occasionally, here are American foreign policy experts arguing why an attack would be too difficult and costly. What is missing from the debate are the views held not only by Iranian leaders but also large populations in numerous capitals and nations around the world: that Iran has the right to pursue its nuclear program; that it is Israel and the U.S. — not Iran — that poses the greatest threat to world peace; that American and Israeli aggression against non-nuclear states (along with their massive stockpile of nuclear weapons) is what makes it rational for a nation to want to proliferate, etc. One does not have to agree with any of those views to recognize how widely they are held in the world and how much of a place they (therefore) merit in the discussion.

If one searches hard enough, one can likely find American media accounts attempting to describe or present the views of Iran on this conflict or other nations which support it — just like NBC News can point to a single Iranian source among the tidal wave of American and Israeli government and military officials who brief its top executives and shape their understanding of the issue. But overwhelmingly, the American media continuously amplifies the views of American and Israeli officials while all but suppressing the views of those on the other side. For every one Iranian official Americans are permitted to hear from (and they are treated with extreme skepticism by American journalists), they hear from countless Israelis (who are treated with the utmost deference). The same thing happens on an even more extreme scale with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (one almost never hears from Palestinians in our media debates), and more extremely still when it comes to demonizing America’s designated enemies (who are virtually never heard from, and are sometimes even officially excluded from media reports). This is the dynamic by which the American establishment media, often without even consciously realizing they’re doing it, severely narrows and distorts our national political debates while pretending to host free-ranging and vibrant discussions.

 

UPDATE: Speaking of how the American media and the U.S. government jointly function, here is a little mathematical formula:

This:

plus this:

equals this:

That’s the reward system in action. Goldberg twice assures everyone concerned that President Obama is “tougher” on Iran than even the Republicans were or are (Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter proudly re-tweeted Goldberg’s Toughness praise), and Goldberg then is granted “the most extensive interview [Obama] has given about the looming Iran crisis,” in which he again assures everyone that Obama Is Tough and Means Serious Business.

 

UPDATE II [Sat.]:  As’ad AbuKhalil writes:

New York Times casually open its op-ed pages for Israeli officials or former Israeli officials to call for and agitate for bombing of Iran, or some Arab country.  Would the New York Times allow Arabs to write “opinion pieces” in which they call for bombing of Israel?

AbuKhalil’s blog is well worth reading in general: one doesn’t have to agree with his substantive policy views to appreciate his unique, expertise-based ability to highlight the contradictions and propaganda that is disseminated on a daily basis in the U.S. about that part of the world. And his rhetorical question here underscores the point: the way in which the American establishment media, which depicts itself as “neutral” and a facilitator of open debate, constantly restricts those very debates in quite rigid ways.

Glenn Greenwald
Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald



WELL, ISN’T THAT SPECIAL?

20 comments

Posted on 8th December 2011 by ecliptix543 in Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Here’s some interesting conspiracy reporting that may be of interest to certain members of the TBP community…

 
 http://www.thedailybell.com/3327/Wall-Street-Buys-Up-Guns

Wall Street Buys Up Guns

Wednesday, December 07, 2011 – by Staff Report
Mystery company buying up U.S. gun manufacturers … Some gun enthusiasts have claimed that the power behind the company is actually George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire and liberal activist. Soros, these people have warned, is buying U.S. gun companies so he can dismantle the industry, Second Amendment be damned. The chatter grew so loud that the National Rifle Association issued a statement in October denying the rumors. “NRA has had contact with officials from Cerberus and Freedom Group for some time,” the NRA assured its members. “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.” Soros isn’t behind the Freedom Group, but, ultimately, another financier is: Stephen Feinberg, the chief executive of Cerberus. Cerberus is part of one of the signature Wall Street businesses of the past decade: private equity. – New York Times”

Dominant Social Theme: It’s just business, nothing more to it.

Free-Market Analysis: Another subdominant social theme? It’s always the same. The Anglosphere power elite is on its way to buying up all the oil, water and farmland in the world (with or without China), or so it seems, and we are told it is the evolution of the free-market economy. Sure …

And now … guns. Not George Soros, mind you. The NRA – an elitist, Trojan Horse of an organization itself – has assured us that the folks behind the purchases are “strong supporters of the Second Amendment.” The NRA added, “We have a mighty fine bridge connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn that we’d like to sell you.”

Oh, sorry – we just made up that last part. Anyway, this is how the power elite likes to work, it seems to us. Every move to support global governance is likely cloaked and hidden. There are always justifications. If it is not a war, or a “human tragedy” that necessitates further centralization, then it is “market forces” at work. But in fact, it is always directed history …

Is it possible that Feinberg is doing the bidding of a larger and more powerful elite? We are well aware that one of the goals of the powers-that-be is to rid the US of guns. It is a major stumbling block to declaring one-world government, or so it is said by directed history observers. Here is something about Feinberg, via Wikipedia:

Stephen Feinberg was born in the Bronx, NY. At eight his family moved to Spring Valley, New York, a relatively poor suburb of New York City. His father was a steel salesman. He attended Princeton University in New Jersey, graduating with a degree in politics in 1982. While there, he captained the tennis team and joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps.

After graduating from college, Feinberg worked as a trader at Drexel Burnham and Gruntal & Co. In 1992 Feinberg teamed up with William L. Richter to found Cerberus Capital Management with just $10 million under management. Feinberg has been at the helm of the firm since its founding. Later alliances with J. Ezra Merkin were important for raising capital.

Subsequent hirings of former politicians and lobbyists John Snow, Dan Quayle and others have served as door-openers in Washington and abroad. The 2007 Cerberus purchase of Chrysler Corp. from Germany’s Daimler Benz became a major and, as of 2009, unsuccessful initiative by Feinberg into a higher-profile investment. Feinberg and others at the firm explicitly presented the investment as patriotic, but many critics ultimately questioned that characterization, especially after Chrysler had to seek and take federal aid. Chrysler now, with federal help, has been sold to Fiat.

As of 2009, Cerberus was facing major calls from its investors for redemptions, and had written down its investment in Chrysler to 19 cents on the dollar. Had there not been the federal bailout, the investment could have been worth nothing.

Well, it’s nice to know that Feinberg has friends in the federal government. Suspicious people (even more paranoid than ourselves) might suggest a quid pro quo: Feinberg gets a bailout and in return, the US gun manufacturing industry gets a roll-up. Well, on second thought, no … That’s just too darn paranoid!

Nonetheless, there is a roll-up. And the activity seems frenetic. Cerberus-controlled Freedom Group, Feinberg’s vehicle, has purchased one high profile gun manufacturer after another. The article tells us that it began with Maine-based Bushmaster before the biggest prize of all fell into its lap, Remington.

After pocketing Remington, the “Freedom Group” targeted Marlin Firearms, then DPMS Firearms, “a maker of semiautomatic, military-style rifles, as well as manufacturers of ammunition and tactical clothing.”

But there was more to come: Harrington & Richardson and L.C. Smith, and Dakota Arms – makers of rifles and something called Barnes Bullets. And more! The article mentions S&K Industries, which supplies wood and laminate for gun stocks, as well as the Advanced Armament Corp., which makes silencers.

This is a pretty hefty swath, no? The Freedom Group itself seems to think so. According to the Times article excerpted above, the Freedom Group said in a filing last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “We believe our scale and product breadth are unmatched within the industry.”

We are sure this is just the market at work … aren’t we? Or will there come a day in the not too distant future when the NRA announces that in order to buy a rifle you will need to be formally licensed and fingerprinted. You will need an ID or a microchip implant.

And then, perhaps, the NRA will announce that the Freedom Group, America’s number one gun owner, is firmly behind the measure! “The industry supports it,” we shall be told. “And so should you!”

Conclusion: “We fight for the independence of recreational gun owners and hunters everywhere,” the press release might continue. “And that’s why we stand side-by-side with the NRA in welcoming this most important initiative. Call your Congressperson today!” Mr. Feinberg, the wire reports inform us, could not be reached for comment …