Hiroshima (larger pic)
Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers and that the bomb itself was an effective for tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to us that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of a war against civilians. The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever the good that might result ? When will our moralists give us a clear answer to this question?
Eyewitness account of P. Siemes
Oil at $120? The FT says this is possible: Simulation shows US held over a barrel
Terrorists yesterday struck oil facilities in the US and Saudi Arabia, pushing oil prices to a record $120 a barrel and doubling to $5,214 the expected annual petrol bill for the average US household. Economists warned of the imminent collapse of the US’s economic recovery and a loss of more than 2m jobs, the largest drop since 1945.
While none of this is true, the scenario is thoroughly plausible, according to high-ranking former government, military and intelligence officials who made up the US cabinet in a simulation exercise that is gaining increasing attention from members of Congress, the White House and oil executives.
…
For the scenario, which included the evacuation of foreign workers from Saudi Arabia and unrest in Nigeria, analysts at Sanford Bernstein calculated that a 4 per cent reduction in world oil supply would increase prices by more than 170 per cent.
Sure, there is the strategic oil reserve which can be used in case of such an emergency.
The mock cabinet concluded that the strategic petroleum reserve was of limited usefulness in such a crisis – it chose to tap it only when prices went to $120 a barrel. Using some of the emergency barrels too early could send prices higher, they said, because traders would worry that less emergency oil would be available if a more serious disruption ensued.
But the limited size of the stocks – the equivalent of two months of US imports – meant the reserve was useless for longer-term disruptions, such as an evacuation of all foreign personnel from Saudi Arabia, which was one of the scenarios presented in the role-play.
So what can be done? Invade Saudi Arabia and seize the oil fields as some have suggested? How many troops would be needed and for how long? Blackmail the Saudis by threatening to nuke Mecca – and what if they do not budge?
Even Friedman is desperate in his column today:
It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?
My guess is yes. The US needs oil above $100 for at least a year before some significant changes will be made – and chances for $100 oil are not small anymore. But I wonder what desperate action America might take if the above scenario happens. That action might well be the real danger.
Do we still want to stop Roberts, considering who (or what) we might get in his place? Personally, I’m almost starting to feel sympathy for the guy — even if he is a greasy corporate whore smothered in coco butter.
Straight Judges Don’t Wear Plaid
Maybe the gang really can shove 1,800 dead American troops down the fucking memory hole and declare Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to stop them? CNN?
Bring ‘Em On
At a minimum, it would be nice if the Hackett campaign would explain the basis for its conclusion that yesterday’s humidity-related "malfunction" was just that — instead of another demonstration of what Hackett on the campaign trail liked to call the Ohio GOP’s "culture of corruption."
Too Close for Comfort
by FlashHarry
Since I first ran into blogs circa 4/2004 at Billmon’s, I have been intrigued by the idea of using a comments or chat room type format to address specific problems and hopefully come up with solutions.
On the recent WB: Sucker Pitch thread here, DeAnander linked to a great piece by Progressive Review‘s Sam Smith: "Things to Do in the Bad Times".
Smith presents concrete suggestions for developing a serious progressive movement that can also influence and/or dominate the Democratic Party, and more importantly, win elections.
I would especially enjoy hearing from my good friend rgiap and others who have experience in developing political and social consciousness. Hopefully we have others here who also know how to turn ’em out on election day.
If you choose to participate in this thread, please be somewhat civil. Leave the corn pone and grits, snarko-Marxism, pole axes, chain guns, and Renaissance poisons at the door.
And if you think there is nothing to be done, remember that 60s saying attributed to Eldridge Cleaver:
IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
So please read Sam Smith and comment here: THINGS TO DO
IN THE BAD TIMES
But there’s good old Jay, standing there on the street corner in his school tie and blazer, waiting for his "friend" to come back with the dime bag he said he was going to buy when he ducked down the alley three hours ago — with Jay’s money.
Intelligence Test
