El Predicto strikes

For a while now I've been wondering how long it will be before we see $100 a barrel oil. My bet is before the end of 2006 and certainly well within Bush's final term. Along with it we can expect gas pump prices of around $4 a gallon (or more like $4.50 to $5 if you're in California!) how about that? I think those prices will be pretty psychologically damaging for many people - they'll be looking at around $40-$50 to fill even a modest sized car with gas. For larger SUVs you'll be approaching $100 a fill up.

The question is, even without an inspired vision from the other white party (that's the Democrats) will people get the message that something is wrong with our level of oil consumption? Or will they swallow some stupid story about how drilling in Alaska will save us and is the right thing to do? Or will the Republicans suddenly pump up the volume on their story of hydrogen power conveniently forgetting that without local renewable energy sources to produce the hydrogen its all just a hand-waving fantasy, or even worse a nightmare?

My bet is that somehow electric-diesel hybrids cars with 100+ mpg range and optional plug-in capability will (fingers crossed) win the day until such time as pure electric cars become feasible for both every day and extended use. In the mean time the Canadians and Venezuelans will both get insanely wealthy mining their oil-sand deposits - the two largest and mostly untapped oil reserves left on the planet.

While it's unlikely we'll ever invade Canada stay tuned for further US intervention in Venezuela (remember that country whose president Pat Robinson wants to the US assasinate) in the name of "democracy". The aim will be to install a pro-USA government which will let us install lots of US corporation in their country to export shit-loads of oil north as opposed to letting it go elsewhere. In the mean time US oil contractors (i.e. Haliburton and the like) will get stinking rich extracting the oil, US oil companies will get stinking rich refining and selling it, and the Venezuelans will remain poor inspite of their vast oil resources.

Think about it: Venezuela and Canada have more oil than the Saudis, Iraqis and Russians put together - so with skyrocketing gas prices and dwindling gas reserves elsewhere shouldn't they all end up as rich as Saudi princes? Its anyone's guess what that kind of wealth will do in Venezuela - you could end up with as much inequity and corruption as in Saudi Arabia, however my bet is the Canadians will find a way to spend that kind of coin wisely (assuming that is they don't have to spend it all on a wall to keep out the Americans). Goodness knows since they also have large and underpopulated windy and sunny tracts of land to exploit they might even invest it in an oil independent future!

Another losing strategy from the left

It just fills me with sadness that the left (if the Democrats can still call themselves that) has nothing better to say about soaring gas prices than "unleash the strategic petroleum reserves", but that's exactly what they are saying:

"Skyrocketing gas prices have tipped consumers upside down this summer and to protect our economy, the president should act immediately to tap the SPR," Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said.

What is more it is clear they are going to use energy costs as their number two weapon against Bush come next election time, number two next to the war on Iraq that is. What is worse is they don't even have a good story on Iraq either - they didn't have one last election ("more of the same but we'll do it better") and they sure haven't expressed one this time around. Much as the majority of Americans now seem to think Bush is doing poorly in Iraq I reckon when the question is posed "Should we pull out of Iraq" the majority will still say no. Lets face it, the stigma of America being labeled a bunch of quitters or losers will just sting too bad. Even if you think that's not how such a move would be seen by any other than the insurgents in Iraq then you can bet that is how the Republicans will frame the argument, it'll go something like this:

Do you want to America to be seen as a nation of quitters? A nation of people who can't finish a job? Do you want to lose the war on terrorism? Do you want to admit all those lives were lost in vain and all those billions of your money just went down the drain? Do you want to explain this to your children? How you were part of generation Q, Q for quitters? If so then go ahead, vote for the Democrats.

Which leads me back to the number two argument against the Republicans. Instead of some pathetic call to unleash the strategic petroleum reserves the need to just come clean - Americas addiction to oil, our foreign policies, our entire lifestyle has put us at the mercy of foreign powers, to the point where they say "Boo" and we jump out of our seats and run for our guns. They need to tell it like it is, oil is Americas Achilles heel that is destabilizing the entire planet both politically and environmentally. Until America decides to come clean, kick the habit and win the war on energy independence nothing will change for the better in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes.

Damnit, Democrats just have to give America a vision for a better future - one with energy independence. A future where you can flip a light switch, travel to work and put food on the table without worrying about where the oil to make it all happen is coming from. I mean come on, this huge nation, with massive natural resources - enough wind energy in the Dakotas alone to power us twice over, massive areas of land with virtually constant sunshine for solar power, and massive over production of grains from farms that could be busy producing bio-mass fuels. Just what is our problem? Have we no guts for making the switch, have we no taste for the glory of energy independence, are we afraid of failing, are we too soft, too bloated, too lazy to bother trying?

All the Democrats have to do is stand up and make a JFK "We choose to go to the moon" style proclamation" and get on with it. Of course it wont happen "by the end of this decade" but there's no reason why it couldn't happen within our (genX-ers) lifetimes, and certainly by the end of next decade. If you're going to blow $200 billion on something don't piss it away killing people overseas, burning oil overseas, blowing things up overseas - spend it on industries at home, giving people jobs at home, giving people hope for the future. Just that announcement alone will probably knock a few bucks of the price of gas as all the oil investors start panicking and dumping their long term gas futures. Democrats need to demonstrate that it takes more to be a world leader than to just carry a big stick and say "We are the world leaders!". You actually need to lead - lead by example and that means we have to get off our asses and just do it.

But you know what, I don't think it will happen that way. The Democrats are still basically slaves to corporate America just as the Republicans are their love child. Corporate America just doesn't want us in control of our own destiny, it wants to control it even though economics says that we should be in control of them. No its actually more convenient to rule from the position where we the people (consumers) are weak and afraid, and the government is there to protect us. If everyone had their own power at home and we didn't have troops all over the world defending oil under someone else's desserts then what would we need that huge military and oil centric economy for? Wouldn't the government have to get on with real business like solving issues of poverty, crime and actually educating its people? Perish the thought, that's much too hard! After all the Europeans have spent the last fifty years working on those issues and still can't get it right - fighting wars against the boogie man you can't see is so much easier.

Another wimpy corporate fraud sentance

So another CFO involved in massive corporate fraud walks away with a few months of jail time and an $11,000 fine instead of up to 30 years. Apparently this was because he spilled the beans on the rest of the HealthSouth execs who had their fingers in the pie. Time off for cooperation is a nice incentive to get tongues to wag, but just what kind of message does that send when you're a CFO, know of billions of fraud, do nothing until caught and only get a few months in jail? Bascially it seems to endorse the notion that ignoring massive corporate fraud when its your job not to is okay so long as you're not the top dog, just capitulate after the event and you'll get off completely or with a light sentence - if you're caught at all.

I say if this guy was eligible for 30 years in jail then give him half off for cooperation, not 99% off! After all insurance companies put the value on someones life at about $1.5 to 2 million - so $4 billion is a couple of thousand lifetimes of corporate fraud, yes think about it: money down the drain due to fraud is lifetimes of human effort down the drain. If this guy was even 1% responsible for this fraud happening (and arguably as CFO with full knowledge of it he was 100% responsible right?) he should sacrifice at least 0.01*2000 = 20 years of his lifetime as punishment. I think that kind of sentancing for corporate fraud might raise a few eyebrows and raise a few bars for people thinking of participating in or hiding it.

Espresso exposed!

No blog is complete without mentioning porn right? Just think how many more hits you get if you do mention it - anyway, for the benefit of some of my readers who probably don't read Newsweek (Agent J reads it for me anyway), you might want to check out the Espresso Porn. It's a fringe foodie (or is that drinkie?) photo blog full of images of dripping and ozing "naked portafilters", a specialty diagnostic or training accessory available online.

Strangely no one seems to have registered teaporn.com - yet.

Over to you weasel eyes

Well I certainly look forward to seeing how this one pans out. My prediction is that old weasel eyes in the White House breaks out his teflon suit and busts out some break dancing moves to avoid ever condemning Robinson's call for assassination of Chavez.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I once said it would have been a whole lot cheaper to put a price tag of a few billion on Saddam's head (or Osama's for that matter) than getting into the quagmire we now have in Iraq. But that assumed Bush ever really cared about whether Saddam was dead or alive - as a matter of fact at various times he completely blew off the importance of finding either Saddam or bin Laden alive. Which belies a much dark purpose to the invasion of Iraq, only no one seemed to have been listening at the time or paying attention to the significance of such a major flip-flop by Mister "no U-turn" (but watch me take a right and a right and make a wrong anyway).

It also pre-supposed that America was actually capable of pulling off such an intervention overseas. To date they seem to have a piss-poor record of succeeding - how many atempts on Castro have they made? For all we know they continue to make them and still fail. In fact so miserable has the record been that the usual modus-operandi for US foreign intervention is funding insurgents, or creating guerilla armies out of slush funds - something that also would have been a whole lot cheaper in Iraq. However although such things have a better rate of success they also seem to end up in installation of even worse people than the ones they are designed to remove.

Anyway, when an armchair proletariat politician like me broaches assassination its hardly a serious threat or even a serious suggestion. When a bona-fide wing-nut like Robertson with a million plus people watching his TV channel starts preaching it (pun intended) that's a whole different ball game, one that requires a comment from the very top. So far the only official response was from Rumsfeld who's basic message was that the US would do something like that because it was illegal. Well hello, when was pre-premptive invasion of another country legal? When was torturing prisoners legal? Even detaining "enemy combatants" indefinitely at Guantanamo has been ruled to be illegal, but that never stopped the USA doing whatever it wanted to before, and certainly wont again. Hell no, if the USA isn't answering Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez you can bet its not because of a question of legality.

In fact Robertson has probably just done the US government a huge disservice - because if they were working on an act of "extreme prejudice" against Chavez, the bar for doing so without causing the finger of blame to point towards the USA has just been raised very significantly. More to the point Robertson has now put Bush in the awkward place of either condemning what he said and getting roasted by the religious extremists following Robertson, or ignoring him and being roasted by the media both at home and world wide. For my part I certainly hope that other world leaders are quick to condemn Robertson's comments and hence put Bush in an even hotter seat that he is already in.

But my faith in Bush's ability to dodge bullets and don his teflon suit (and probably asbestos underpants) is rarely dented. The only significant change in his defensive dressing since been elected is he now has to hide his earpiece receiver well and truly up where the sun don't shine.

Bows and arrows on planes?

After a recent bout of flying I find the story that the TSA may be relaxing its restrictions on small knives, razor blades and bows and arrows very interesting. I'll be the first to admit I find all the shenanigans they put us through before flying to be a total farce, and like many I've often found myself on the plane in possession of a banned item due to pure accident. Even when bags are searched for items there is almost never a really thorough effort to explore all its cavities, and I've never once seen anyone rip apart a laptop. Anyone with half a brain could devise a way to put box cutters, large knives, or even explosives inside a laptop and get them on a plane.

But really, now TSA wants to allow a bow an arrow on a plane? What is the thinking there - they are trying to appease great white hunters who are tired of having to shoot Bambi instead of impale him with a pointy stick? I agree it seems unlikely anyone could really hold up a plane with a bow and arrow, could someone really kill more than one person with it before being stomped by a dozen angry passengers determined not to smacked into the ground? Yes, much of the change in inflight safety has come from passengers realizing that not all hijackers are intent to take their passengers along for a safe ride to the next airport. But really, did anyone think that a few guys armed with nothing more than box cutters could hold up a plane?

Also think about that pilot locked in the cabin with his gun. If a bow and arrow is aimed at a flight attendant or the boys in biz-class don't you think he'd be tempted to come out to take some pot shots? And after that the rest is history, hijackers storm the cockpit (because it doesn't have double doors to allow secure entry and exit) and the plane and probably the only gun on board is theirs.

I still stick with my radical theory of inflight security - everyone goes armed to the teeth (guns for all!), or they go buck naked, or they go chemically sedated. I can even imagine airlines specializing in such security policies might actually gain some very loyal supporters.

Lighten up

Sometimes advertising doesn't just suck life from your soul and money from your wallet. Sometimes its pure entertainment or art. Here is an example of the latter.

Not what you want to see at the airport...

I'm sitting here in a restaurant at Toronto airport mouching off some free wifi from the executive lounge when people start rushing by my table to look at the TV. I don't normally pay attention to TVs at airports but this time I look. And then I look again... a plane has crashed at Toronto airport. I look over my shoulder... Its a plane on fire.

A few seconds of sanity check - my family who I just waved goodbye to on their trip back to London aren't flying for another hour or so which means they must be safe. Breath...

Firetrucks are arriving now as the big black cloud starts spreading. The TV continues to blare and people stare. Pilots and other flight crew start appearing looking anxious. I can't imagine how they feel, its something anyone wants to hear about, let alone see.

The cloud is getting bigger and spreads down the runway covering buildings and the foreground. Still no news if anyone is injured but the TV says 200 on board and the plane is an Air France 737 flight 358 that crashed on landing.

I phone my girlfriend and let her know its not my family on board, this will be all over the news any minute now. Then I phone my brother who is waiting to leave but I can't reach him so I leave a message. What are you supposed to say? The have a safe trip I wished them all an hour ago probably rings hollow now, but I repeat it anyway. Try to put it out of your minds I say, everything will be okay.

The plane is engulfed in a huge white cloud now, lots of water is being sprayed onto it and the cloud is rolling towards the terminal. Ambulances are roaring by. A big crowd of people in departures is calmly watching the TV and a rumour starts that the airport is being shut down.

I take out my camera and take a photo. I feel kind of guilty but also feel like I have some weird right to take it. It could easily have been my folks on that plane. Does that give me a right to take a photo? What if it had been my folks on that plane... I guess I wouldn't have taken it. But a hundred journalists would have taken it, no second thought.

A waitress brings drinks to the table next to me and mentions that six people have been rescued and I silently contemplate what that probably means.

I think I'll stop now and try to call my brother again. I want to wish him and the rest of my family a safe flight agian...