Here.
Read it and laugh.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Guardian has interesting coverage. Steve Bell nails the cartoon.
Cartoon link here, below reporting here.
British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts
Matthew Weaver - guardian.co.uk - Monday June 30, 2008
The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.
The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.
Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.
The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.
The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.
It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.
Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.
Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
It sure looks like the Coalition of the Willing is willing to divide spoils. I have not seen any French or German petroleum interests having a plate at the table. Given relative scale of involvement, the Poles probably got one oil well, as willing to accept it after being willing earlier.
You'd have to think that Schlumberger is established and capable of helping this former Ottoman colonial region that transited to British control as part of the post World War I breakup of the Ottoman Empire, gaining at that point the ethnically mixed national boundaries holding at present, with the British, as in India, siding with a minority population given control and in need of British troop bolstering to hold control.
Perhaps Schlumberger's skills simply were at some point surpassed by Halliburton, with that as the sole determinant of relative roles in things. Perhaps not. It would not be so crass a thing as exclusion for not having bought a ticket, would it?
The prominent role, since abandoned, of the British in the Coalition of the Willing has its historical context, see, e.g., Wikipedia, here and here.
"In 1927, huge oil fields were discovered near Kirkuk and brought economic improvement," is one of the more major sentences in those sources, and they also give some history on the independence of Kuwait from the remainder of the Arab state, due mainly to British will. Without the oil, we do not see US worry over political developments in, say Chad, which has equal amounts of sand to offer as Iraq.
Chistopher Truscott has an interesting post, entitled, "A Complicating Factor for Elwyn Tinklenberg."
It was posted today, July 16, here. I put a comment on the Christopher Truscott blog, so there's no need to expand on things here.
Follow the link, have a look, and add as a comment there any info you can, if you know of the legal nuances or of IP party rules and/or DFL rules about dual party filing [separate from endorsement] or the primary election consequences of the IP party having endorsed Elwyn Tinklenberg, while apparently having only one filing candidate before the filing deadline had passed. Finally, Anderson may be pressured and cave in to pressure to drop his candidacy in the three day "second thoughts" withdrawal period following expiration of the filing deadline. If that happens it would be news. Presumably Christopher Truscott would be on top of that issue. I defer.
Follow the link, have a look, and add as a comment there any info you can, if you know of the legal nuances or of IP party rules and/or DFL rules about dual party filing [separate from endorsement] or the primary election consequences of the IP party having endorsed Elwyn Tinklenberg, while apparently having only one filing candidate before the filing deadline had passed. Finally, Anderson may be pressured and cave in to pressure to drop his candidacy in the three day "second thoughts" withdrawal period following expiration of the filing deadline. If that happens it would be news. Presumably Christopher Truscott would be on top of that issue. I defer.
The Tinklenberg Blog is not spam, nor in any way an improper use. Political or other opinion is what blogging is.
I believe Gary Gross, Let Freedom Ring, is interested in the Sixth District and wanted to see if he had posted on the reported fundraising numbers for the second quarter.
I looked there, and saw this:
Disrespect for over-aggresive thought policing of blogs crosses party lines and belief systems about individual candidates. It is a necessary thing, some blogs can offend and policing is needed to isolate and quarantine patently offensive things without any redeeming social value. While I may appear to believe Elwyn Tinklenberg, himself, fits that criterion, the blog Tanner Curl maintains IS fair use.
I join in what Gary Gross said. Including his criticism of Blogger. Blogger is the devil I know and use, and find frustrating in ways, for instance, try to post a pdf document online via blogger, to link to it.
I kludge around that by cutting things into jpg files, and posting the images - something easy enough to do in Blogger. At some point, many people leave Blogger, with Wordpress often gaining what Blogger loses, and those are technical issues apart from NOT wanting to see over-aggesssive content policing.
To the extent the Tinklenberg blog solicits contributions, that also, in my view is fair use. Courts have wrestled in First Amendment situations with whether and how far to distinguish "commercial speech" from other expression.
If Blogger finds someone operating a business via a blog and wants a fee for that, the situation differs from a basically expressive blog that also solicits political funds. Indeed, Blogger blurs its own lines that way, offering bloggers the option of carrying its pre-screened advertisement content, for cash.
And, Blogger is an arm of Google, for those not already knowing that ownership link.
I looked there, and saw this:
I just got this email from Tanner Curl of the Tinklenberg campaign:Hi Gary,
I saw your post today and wanted to clarify that soon after July 4th I received an e-mail from blogspot, saying we were flagged as possible spam by their little blog bots. They didn’t give a reason. It seemed like an automated e-mail. Our blog was locked until we were cleared of all spam charges today!
And hence, a new post: http://tinklenberg08.blogspot.com/2008/07/were-back.html
Also, we will be continuing the Housing and Mortgages Week at a later date.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-Tanner
I’m sorry to hear that Blogger gave the Tinklenberg campaign these troubles. I know what dealing with Blogger is like. That’s why I left it in March, 2006. I appreciate Tanner’s corerspondence with me and I sincerely hope that their troubles with Blogger are behind them.
Disrespect for over-aggresive thought policing of blogs crosses party lines and belief systems about individual candidates. It is a necessary thing, some blogs can offend and policing is needed to isolate and quarantine patently offensive things without any redeeming social value. While I may appear to believe Elwyn Tinklenberg, himself, fits that criterion, the blog Tanner Curl maintains IS fair use.
I join in what Gary Gross said. Including his criticism of Blogger. Blogger is the devil I know and use, and find frustrating in ways, for instance, try to post a pdf document online via blogger, to link to it.
I kludge around that by cutting things into jpg files, and posting the images - something easy enough to do in Blogger. At some point, many people leave Blogger, with Wordpress often gaining what Blogger loses, and those are technical issues apart from NOT wanting to see over-aggesssive content policing.
To the extent the Tinklenberg blog solicits contributions, that also, in my view is fair use. Courts have wrestled in First Amendment situations with whether and how far to distinguish "commercial speech" from other expression.
If Blogger finds someone operating a business via a blog and wants a fee for that, the situation differs from a basically expressive blog that also solicits political funds. Indeed, Blogger blurs its own lines that way, offering bloggers the option of carrying its pre-screened advertisement content, for cash.
And, Blogger is an arm of Google, for those not already knowing that ownership link.
Blue man has the numbers. Bachmann substantially outraises Tinklenberg for the quarter, among individual and special interest donors.
For the 2008 second quarter, Michele Bachmann raised over $382,000 compared to Elwyn Tinklenberg's $272,000, besting him by $110,000 (Bachmann getting 140% more than Tinklenberg's total).
Among individuals it was Bachmann gaining $189,000 against Tinklenberg's $163,000 (besting Tinklenberg's total by 116%).
Among special interest donations, Bachmann totaled $193,000 while Tinklenberg, (depite all his unions that in the first quarter substantially out spent individuals giving to Tinklenberg by a large margin), managed $109,000 from special interests (i.e., Bachmann's special interest haul was 177% greater than Tinklenberg's special interest number).
Numerically, she cleaned his clock across the board and has $1.3 million cash on hand at present to his low six-figure war chest. She is standing tall, for a tiny person. They are not even close as to funds on hand, which trnaslates into ad buying power.
As to a split between individuals/interests; Tinklenberg showed individuals gave 60% of his second quarter donations, leading Bachmann's 49.5% from individuals. That she got almost half her money this quarter that way is surprising, and Tinklenberg's higher percentage this quarter is a drastic departure from his first quarter split, where the Union PACs carried him for that period, and what little individual money he got then was almost exclusively out-of-district. Briefly looking at his FEC reporting, he appears better placed among Minnesota donors than out of state this quarter, compared to the first quarter, but it would be hard to not improve that way, given the substantial out of state (and out of district) funding he attained first quarter.
And to understand politics:
I did not do breaks or percentages, in state vs out, in district vs. out, for either candidate. That would require a detailed look at FEC report pages, whereas I relied upon a trusted and unimpeachably reliable blog source.
_________________
NOTE: numbers were taken from Blue Man's post, here, without FEC site verification (and rounded off to the nearest thousand dollars).
photo from here, lyrics, here
Among individuals it was Bachmann gaining $189,000 against Tinklenberg's $163,000 (besting Tinklenberg's total by 116%).
Among special interest donations, Bachmann totaled $193,000 while Tinklenberg, (depite all his unions that in the first quarter substantially out spent individuals giving to Tinklenberg by a large margin), managed $109,000 from special interests (i.e., Bachmann's special interest haul was 177% greater than Tinklenberg's special interest number).
Numerically, she cleaned his clock across the board and has $1.3 million cash on hand at present to his low six-figure war chest. She is standing tall, for a tiny person. They are not even close as to funds on hand, which trnaslates into ad buying power.
As to a split between individuals/interests; Tinklenberg showed individuals gave 60% of his second quarter donations, leading Bachmann's 49.5% from individuals. That she got almost half her money this quarter that way is surprising, and Tinklenberg's higher percentage this quarter is a drastic departure from his first quarter split, where the Union PACs carried him for that period, and what little individual money he got then was almost exclusively out-of-district. Briefly looking at his FEC reporting, he appears better placed among Minnesota donors than out of state this quarter, compared to the first quarter, but it would be hard to not improve that way, given the substantial out of state (and out of district) funding he attained first quarter.
And to understand politics:
from the musical: Cabaret
Money makes the world go around,
the world go around, the world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
it makes the world go round.
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.
I did not do breaks or percentages, in state vs out, in district vs. out, for either candidate. That would require a detailed look at FEC report pages, whereas I relied upon a trusted and unimpeachably reliable blog source.
_________________
NOTE: numbers were taken from Blue Man's post, here, without FEC site verification (and rounded off to the nearest thousand dollars).
photo from here, lyrics, here
The "Draft Ciresi!" blog folds up. Dean Barkley, Elwyn Tinklenberg's soul-mate, runs for Senate.
From the Draft Ciresi! site:
Those of us who had wished for Ciresi to reenter now find ourselves in a great deal of difficulty in what has turned to a depressing Senate race. We are faced with Al Franken, the man who returned after thirty years to continue his career of partisan attacks. There is Norm Coleman, who has spent his life doing what is best for himself over the interest of Minnesotans. And, of course, there is Dean Barkley, who has settled with running for Senate because he has nothing better to do and because he thinks the job is easy; [...]
Many have suspected us of being a Republican creation; that is surely not true. Now that Mike Ciresi is no longer viable, our site will discontinue. We do not mean to affect the discussion further, [...]
Priscilla Lord Faris should not be a major obstacle for Al Franken to overcome. No major candidate has emerged to challenge Al Franken in the primary.
Jesse Ventura's decision not to run is good news for Franken, so long as Ventura's decision does not push Ciresi into the election. In the Survey USA/KSTP poll released yesterday, Al Franken was 13 points behind Sen. Coleman.
That is excerpted from two posts there. If truly motivated by a belief that Norm Coleman is bad for Minnesota, (a view I have already expressed more than once in viewing him as an opportunistic apprentice underling who did as told and did so to the disadvantage of the state and nation), then they can land somewhere and spend time doing what they can to lessen Norman Coleman's opportunity and chances.
Or they can go off somewhere and be soreheads, which is the implication of "we do not mean to affect the discussion further."
I cannot criticize their right to suggest Franken was not the best choice for the DFL because I have said the same of Elwyn Tinklenberg.
They have anonymously published claiming to be DFL insiders believing Ciresi would have been a better DFL choice, while I remain independent and unaffiliated because the DFL makes "pragmatic" choices such as backing Tinklenberg over a progressive and capable alternative, Bob Olson, when Tinklenberg's true place always was with the IP.
The cynical Sixth District DFL regulars in that fashion insult me and my district by offering a crypto-Republican against a certifiable loony-Republican, so that I get no choice but one between Republican-spirited individuals, with the DFL suggesting I should be happy over a Blue Dog with all those many, many, many fleas.
They do that because the courage is lacking in the district's DFL to run a progressive. Bless them. It's their party. Not mine.
Compromising principles is not my thing.
And do not doubt for a second that Elwyn Tinklenberg is a compromiser and appeaser.
Tinklenberg's website says this of his true IP colors:
Tinklenberg was endorsed [at the IP convention] by a show of hands that indicated he had gained significantly more votes from the delegates present than the sixty percent needed to endorse.
Former Independence Party stalwarts Dean Barkley, Peter Hutchinson and Jack Uldrich all spoke in favor of the IP endorsement after the party's chair, Craig Swaggert, suggeted to the convention that they consider endorsing the Blaine DFLer.
Tinklenberg, who didn't actively seek the endorsement, had made it known that he would accept it if offered. After the convention voted, Tinklenberg told [t]he delegates that he was in full support of the party's values and would proudly campaign on them.
Tinklenberg noted that in the 2006 race the winner, Michele Bachmann, won by a mere 547 votes over the combined DFL and IP votes.
John Binkowski, the IP candidate in the 2006 race, was a delegate to the convention and also spoke in favor of the Tinklenberg endorsement.
The Tinklenberg Blog expands:
Two years ago, Independence Party candidate John Binkowski drew almost 8 percent of the district's vote, helping Bachmann win the seat with 50 percent of the vote. Democrat Patty Wetterling got just 42 percent.
Tinklenberg is positioning himself as more moderate than the conservative Bachmann and trying to win over middle-of-the-road voters.
"What this says about our campaign is that we are trying to do what we talk about, and that is to build through addition rather than division," said Tinklenberg, who worked as transportation commissioner under former Gov. Jesse Ventura, who won office as a third-party candidate.
Not an ounce of conviction expressed. "Positioning himself." No truer words were ever spoken. The dance, no spirit, a technician and bureaucrat with an appeasment mentality, "positioning himself as more moderate" i.e., trying to be just to the middle relative to "the conservative Bahcmann and trying to win over middle-of-the-road voters." Expediency over conscience is what his website and blog brazenly admit. Courage and conviction have no place over flexible "positioning."
The man must be so elastic that anything fits with nothing real or constraining. That's the flavor his own candidacy rhetoric gives us. It is not just me saying so. It is Elwyn Tinklenberg and cohorts saying precisely that. He is posturing. A poseur "positioning himself as more moderate."
There really is not too much conscience expressed in, "What this says about our campaign is that we are trying to do what we talk about, and that is to build through addition rather than division." That is gobbledygook, other than saying it is posturing and posing. My guess is he is "optimistic" that "positioning" around that way will work. He may be correct. P.T. Barnum may have been correct.
Try as hard as I might, I cannot envision Paul Wellstone nor Hubert Humphrey saying he could happily run on what the Independence Party stands for in terms of respect for the excluded and the downtrodden, and belief in helping the little guy.
This is Dean Barkley's soul-brother that the DFL Sixth District bosses have handed down, not a Wellstone, not a Humphrey.
A Dean Barkley clone.*
I have no problem with Tinklenberg courting and gladly accepting the IP nomination.
It is where the gentleman belongs, and you can check that out via the IP website.
That link identifies the IP "party's values" in which Elwyn Tinklenberg was/is "in full support" and, instead of traditional Wellstone-Humphrey values, are the values on which Elwyn Tinklenberg "would proudly campaign."
Please go and read what values Tinklenberg truly holds. The IP does not say it is pro-choice, in favor of tax reform to lessen the burden on the middle class and tax the wealthy their fair share, nor does it favor universal healthcare as an inherent citizenship right. It is anything but progressive.
The IP and its candidates are GOP-lite. Nothing but that.
Tinklenberg belongs there solely because he is a shade insufficiently right-wing to satisfy some of the extreme Sixth District Republicans. Otherwise he could run as GOP, except they have an incumbent. And Tinklenberg IS pragmatic.
It is not expedient to try to challenge an incumbent. So he is allowed to parade himself as a DFL individual, but he sure does not look like one. Bless him.
___________
* Read about Dean Barkley, here, here, here, here, here (where apparently he deferred to Tinklenberg but might have complicated things against a real and progressive DFL Sixth District candidate much as Binkowski did against Wetterling), here, and here.
Read, specifically, about Dean Barkley's choice to run (IP only) for the Senate, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
They even look alike -- like identical forced-smile politician caricatures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)