May 4th, 2008
It’s hard to pin down Thomas Friedman, if one is not paying attention. Yes, Mr. Friedman is a cheerleader of techno-prediterminism and an unapologetic free market fundamentalist; that, nonetheless, I read because his opinions seem blessed with Good Housekeeping’s seal of approval for “conventional wisdom,” that is often held by those in the top echelons of industry, government and similar elite circles. However, even though Mr. Friedman is often just a purveyor of conventional wisdom (i.e., the Iraq invasion was a good idea), now and then he writes a thing or two that surprises:
Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.
If Mr. Friedman is putting this in his column it can only mean that, in between cocktail parties at his “11,400-square-foot house,” he’s heard a similar line from one of his elite associates. And if this is the case, it means that there’s a new conventional wisdom bubbling up in these elite circles about nation building at home.
From his previous writings, and in between the lines of his latest column, it’s clear that Mr. Friedman expects free market fundamentalism to shape any domestic nation building programs; however, just the fact that this possibility is emerging as a domestic policy, it can only mean that Mr. Friedman and his elite colleagues are contemplating an expanded role for our federal government.
If after traveling through our country this is the conclusion that Mr. Friedman arrived at, that Americans are ready for nation building at home; then I suggest that Mr. Friedman should spend more time at home, observing Americans, just as he so famously spends time observing and chatting with taxi drivers abroad.
April 29th, 2008
Have you ever seen watermelons like these before? No, never! Me neither! They are beautiful, and I can only imagine that they taste as sweet as they look. These are moon and stars watermelons, according to the NY Times.
The image is incredible, because I have never seen anything like it. And that’s just the problem:
[Gary Paul Nabhan] has spent most of the past four years compiling a list of endangered plants and animals that were once fairly commonplace in American kitchens but are now threatened, endangered or essentially extinct in the marketplace. He has set out to save them, which often involves urging people to eat them.
Mr. Nabhan’s list, 1,080 items and growing, forms the basis of his new book, an engaging journey through the nooks and crannies of American culinary history titled “Renewing America’s Food Traditions: Saving and Savoring the Continent’s Most Endangered Foods” (Chelsea Green Publishing, $35).
The book tells the stories of 93 ingredients both obscure (Ny’pa, a type of salt grass) and beloved (the Black Sphinx date), along with recipes that range from the accessible (Centennial pecan pie) to the challenging (whole pit-roasted Plains pronghorn antelope).
I don’t know about eating a pronghorn antelope, but I would at least like to taste some moon and stars watermelons.
April 28th, 2008
High oil prices may be a permanent condition from here out; a fact that, as I previously mentioned, will come at a much higher cost than what most of us can imagine.
However, even with the current price of $120 dollars for a barrel of oil, we simply cannot get enough and, instead, continue marching straight towards the precipice that’s at the end of our “Long Emergency.”
As the NY Times reports, given oil prices, one would expect increased supply or diminished demand to bring things into balance, however:
[A]s prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil prices spiraling upward.
“According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises industrialized countries. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.”
A key reason that supply is not rising to meet demand is that producers outside of the OPEC cartel — countries like Russia, Mexico and Norway — have been showing troubling signs of sluggishness.
That’s right, the key phrase that one needs to pay close attention to comes at the end: swing oil producers cannot meet demand, due to troubling signs of sluggishness.
The article continues:
At the same time, oil consumption keeps expanding at a faster clip than production. Demand is forecast to increase this year by 1.2 million barrels a day, to 87.2 million barrels a day. In the United States, the world’s most oil-thirsty nation, consumption has actually fallen a bit because of the economic slowdown.
But that drop is being offset by growth in other countries. World consumption is projected to rise 35 percent, to around 115 million barrels a day, in the next two decades. Most of the growth will come from China, India and oil-producing countries in the Middle East, where retail fuel prices are subsidized, encouraging wasteful consumption.
That’s right, at present, it looks like we’re headed towards cliff: “sluggish” oil production and increased global demand. Remember, we’re talking about the world’s most precious commodity, which makes this a situation ripe for conflicts, er, wars on a global scale.
Peak oil?
Some regions are simply running out of reserves. Norway’s production has slumped by 25 percent since its peak in 2001. In Britain, oil production has plummeted 43 percent in eight years. The North Sea is now considered a dying oil basin. Alaska’s giant field at Prudhoe Bay has declined 65 percent since its peak 20 years ago.
[…]
[T]he case that has attracted the most attention is Mexico, the second-biggest exporter to the United States, which seems increasingly helpless to stem the collapse of its largest oil field, Cantarell. Last week, the country’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, said that production had fallen 300,000 barrels a day so far this year to 2.9 million barrels a day, a stunning drop from its peak production of 3.4 million in 2004.
[…]
Further clouding the picture, Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, signaled last week that it might have trouble increasing its production.
As one would expect to read in such an objective and balanced article, solutions that are just over the horizon receive their proper due. The over the horizon solutions usually involve throwing more dollars at tech innovations, so that we can drill for more oil. However, as the article concludes, throwing more dollars at this may not be enough:
The International Energy Agency estimates that current investments will be insufficient to replace declining oil production, let alone increase overall output. The energy agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to increase global output, a level of investment that is unlikely to be met. It said a crisis “involving an abrupt run-up in prices” could not be ruled out before 2015.
There you go, kiddies. A preview of upcoming events in The Long Emergency.
April 26th, 2008
As I previously posted, last week the NY Times reported that the Pentagon and Bush administration used domestic propaganda, in the form of so-called retired generals with direct ties to the Pentagon and to military contractors, to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public.
Since then, and it should come as no surprise, the networks have refused to come clean on their use of, and participation in the Pentagon’s domestic propaganda program during the lead up to the war. And when the subject is finally covered by a minor network, PBS, an apologists of domestic propaganda — with ties to the Pentagon and to corporate media — is prominently featured in the segment.
The take away of the segment for me is that the networks refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for the war, and that they will simply ignore the NY Time’s report all together. Thus, again, the vast majority of the public, which still gets their news from the networks, will remain in the dark about this on going manipulation of the public discourse by the Pentagon and by the Bush administration.
For the record, as Judy Woodruff mentions in the segment:
And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond. [Emphasis added.]
Let’s see how long the networks go on ignoring their complicity in this fiasco that’s the Iraq war. I bet it’ll be a long while before a word is uttered.
April 26th, 2008
True, there’s plenty about Ansel Adams on the web. However, this article in the Travel section of NY Times is still worth reading, because it captures so well what so many of us amateur photographers attempt to do with our black & whites — that is, imagine that we’re Ansel Adams.
From the article:
Today, it is not unusual to encounter professional photographers and novices alike trying to retrace his path. They wait for the perfect minute of moonrise over Half Dome or a shadow on a fallen tree in Siesta Lake. They remember his photo of a juniper tree they saw in a museum, on a coffee cup or a monthly calendar.
And here are some of my B & W shots:
