Everyone's Invited

In a seeming minor story with major implications, Egypt this week announced that it was implementing a nuclear power/weapons strategy to feed growing electrical demand both domestically and internationally. Egypt plans to build three nuclear power stations by 2020 with a total capacity of 1,800 megawatts. Egypt has taken pains to declare, like Iran, that its motivations are entirely peaceful.

Can you hear the collective Israeli and American groan sweeping the world like an atomic blastwave? Not another one of these uppity Muslim states looking for nuclear power/weapons. Can't these people realize that they have enough oil in the ground and so they don't need nuclear power/weapons like we do? Besides we're responsible nuclear states, something they could never be.

But aren't Iran and Egypt the best placed to realize that demand is growing at the same time as the oil age is ending?

Iran knows very well how much new oil discoveries they are making and how much longer their oil will last. They also want to keep their people happy and nothing placates people better than cheap energy. How pissed off will the burgeoning youth of the Middle East react when they're told that they can't listen to their Ipods anymore? How pissed off would we be?

On the other hand, Egypt knows that the Aswan Dam will only produce so much electricity. Building more monstrous dams is out due to the destruction it causes and the immense costs involved. Like Iran they have to provide for their youthful population and have no desire to risk lawlessness; don't expect Hosni Mubarak's Emergency Law, a quarter century old, to disappear anytime soon.

So they both have decided to embrace the new international saviour, nuclear power/weapons. I have deliberately placed these two technologies together in this article because they are inseparable. Power and destruction both flow from the heart of the atom. As much as you claim your atoms are for peace, they can be easily used for war. Just ask South Korea.

And finally both Iran and Egypt are intimately aware of how nuclear power/weapons lead to prestige and power. The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China (amongst many others) aren't in a hurry to disarm as they are obliged to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact they are actually upgrading their arsenals. So the best that Iran and Egypt can do is try and catch up vainly while the world piles up the arsenal that will inevitably remove humanity and the rest of this wondrous creation from history.

Worst President Ever

How dare John McCain and the rest of those rebellious Republican senators challenge the holiness of the Commander in Chief? Don't they know that our way of life hangs in the balance? If we don't allow torture and show trials without evidence then we risk another September 11. The terrorists will have won if we show any weakness. They are watching and stand poised to overthrow the government, trust us.

Since being defeated on his proposed treatment of "illegal combatants" both in the Supreme Court and now in the Senate, George W Bush is on the rampage. Not only is he lambasting the Democratic Party (AKA the capitulators) but is also now forced to fight with members of his own party in the legislative branch and even his former Secretary of State. Led by Republican senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture in Vietnam, Republicans in the Senate have rejected Bush's demand to waive the Geneva Conventions for "illegal combatants". They have proposed their own legislation which Bush has vowed to veto.

These senators obviously missed the lesson that declares that torture and drumhead trials are fundamentally democratic exercises. Come on, if you're evil then you clearly don't have the right to see the evidence against you and may be executed without appeal based on it; only good people get that right. And if you're evil, then we have the right to pull out your fingernails as needed or house you in sub-zero temperatures until you tell us about expired intelligence that is ultimately meaningless. Who cares if intelligence won through torture is almost always wrong? Not President Bush.

It's wonderful to know that we won't have to wait until the end of Bush's tenure for him to be declared the worst president in the history of the United States. Usually it takes historians decades to decide on a president's performance in office. But with Bush it didn't take nearly that long. Bush is not only mad but he is evil himself. His demand for torture and illegal trials demonstrate that he is no different from the enemy he pretends to fight. That's the real lesson of this pathetic exercise.

Thank you George for reminding us of the evil within us all; unlike you, we should always listen to that little voice that speaks to us when we are doing something wrong. I hope you have a successful career with the Carlyle Group after 2008 when you've oozed out of the White House like so much pus.

Party Like It's 2146

Today the President and CEO of the Saudi Arabian oil company, Aramco, announced proudly that the earth still has 140 years of oil ready to be pumped out of the ground. See, all those chumps that subscribe to the peak oil theory are wrong. The earth isn't running out of oil. Everyone on earth can live like a North American. The party will never end. Tomorrow never comes.

The thing is that he is partly right (you weren't expecting that right). The earth probably does have about 140 years of oil left under its skin. Unfortunately it's not much of a challenge to the theory of peak oil which is the leading argument that the oil age is ending. Unfortunately I believe this statement is based on a fundamental misreading of peak oil; oil is not running out, it probably never will, but it's going to become harder to pump. The whole idea of peak oil is that oil production will peak, internationally, or perhaps it already has, and then will start to decline at which point it will be harder and harder to get the oil out of the ground. It'll still be there surely and in 140 years someone somewhere will still be pumping it at great expense but the days of plentiful and cheap oil are coming to an end. As peak oil hits, prices will rise as it gets harder and harder to get the sweet crude out of the earth.

And besides, state-owned companies like Aramco (and even private oil companies) aren't the most honest and transparent industries so I wouldn't take this CEO's word for it. This murky business probably has something to do with the fact that human civilization is based on their dwindling "product".

(Did you know that Aramco stands for Arab-American Company?)

Know Your Enemy

So we're always told that Hamas is an evil terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants and the establishment of an Islamic state in the historic British Mandate Palestine. No western state will recognize the currently elected government headed by Hamas' political party. This lack of recognition coupled with the impotence of the Palestinian state, have conspired to deprive the Palestinians of many of the basic necessities of life.

So much for western claims of spreading democracy. Sorry Palestinians, we forgot to mention that democracy means making the right choice, our choice. Ultimately though, Hamas was elected not for their belligerent position vis-a-vis Israel but for their pledges to root out corruption in Palestine. The government of Ismail Haniyeh is the Palestinians choice to lead them. Are they wrong?

Instead of ignoring and marginalizing Ismail Haniyeh, why not listen to what he has to say? No one seems willing talk speak with him in spite of his position as Palestinian Prime Minister. So we had better give him a chance to speak. I wholeheartedly encourage you to read the text of his recent letter to British Labour Party and the British public more generally. Does this sound like a terrorist to you?

And unlike many leaders around the world, you can send him an email if you'd like. His email address is haniyeh@fastmail.net

Convenient

The timing of the release of today's video of Osama bin Laden meeting some of the 9/11 hijackers is perhaps a little too convenient for a number of reasons.

For one thing it should draw attention away from George W Bush's admission yesterday that the CIA has covert jails around the world holding many high profile Al Qaeda leaders. These jails of course being outrageous given that their prisoners are divorced from the American justice system and that doubtless torture and deprivation are regular tactics of the US spy agency. If they didn't have to worry about Al-Qaeda they might actually demand some kind of accountability from their Commander in Chief.

Secondly it will obviously remind Americans of that tragic day now almost five years old. Let's whip up the hysteria and beat the shit out of some Muslims. Why not? And remember voters that Democrats are defeatist and the Republicans have led the (largely failed) struggle against Al-Qaeda and their allies in Saddam's Iraq. Oh wait, you didn't know there was a mid-term election in November? Surprise!

And with any news these days, the appearance of this video will draw attention away from the daily bombings in Iraq and the growing insurgency in Afghanistan. How many hundreds died today in the streets of Baghdad? How many NATO soldiers died in Helmand Province? Turn that down, bin Laden is speaking--let's quake with fear together.

Al Qaeda certainly has a flare from the dramatic as we all witnessed five years ago. But Osama, why release this tape now if you've had it sitting on your shelf since well before 9/11? You should have busted that shit out the day after 9/11 to tell us who broke our beautiful twin towers and crushed our more beloved economy. To be honest we never really knew.

I will propose that this tape fell into the hands of the American military probably after the invasion of Afghanistan and they are now choosing to release it for the reasons outlined above. But maybe Osama just lost it in amongst his porn and Die Hard videos. Just like his buddy Kim Jong-il.

Why the wait? That should be the question on everyone's mind. For now this release seems too perfectly timed for the Bush Administration.

Jack in the Box

So economists are reveling in the discovery of a new patch of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. This patch was discovered through a well nicknamed Jack (a relatively boring name, why not salvation). The wider patch known as the Lower Tertiary has the potential, we're told, to increase the US's reserves by 50% and may contain between 3 and 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Experts were quick to hail the discovery as a victory for technology. Before Jack they just couldn't see what was under the sea's floor in the Lower Tertiary. The lesson is one that we've all heard before: that technology will be our salvation and keep all our cars running and our houses warm. We will always defeat the earth no matter what it throws at us. Our ingenuity trumps all challenges. This party isn't over until we say it is.

The Globe and Mail article that reported this new find was quick to scoff at the theory of peak oil that is in vogue these days. Ha ha, the author laughed, looks like you were wrong Hubbert! We're swimming in oil. Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research Inc and a strong opponent of the peak oil theory said of peak oil boosters in the terribly partial article, "This won't convince the bulk of them. For the rest of us, it does serve as a reminder that there are still a lot of things that can still be done.”

Why put so much effort into undermining a theory and be so one sided in your article? Sounds like the evangelicals arguing against the theory of evolution. Peak oil isn't nearly as widely believed as evolution but it's growing in currency every day. Plainly, it just makes sense. Oil is a non-renewable resource, it can't last. Not even our beloved technology can prevent that as much as the highly biased author of this article would hope. We had better get busy thinking of other options.

I wonder if the Globe and Mail will issue an update six months down the road when it's revealed that the Lower Tertiary only contains several million barrels of oil? That's about enough to keep us all going for about 3 hours. Don't bet on it.

Casual President

Have you ever noticed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, never gets dressed up for anyone? I just read about his latest meeting with an international big shot, Kofi Annan. The picture I've attached is from that story. Kofi is probably hearing Armani but Ahmadinejad looks like a regular guy off the street. He could just be off to a job in an office in downtown Tehran but he's actually the president of the Islamic Republic.

Even when he spoke before the UN General Assembly earlier this year, he did it in a basic suit jacket with a dress shirt underneath but unlike the other leaders he went tieless. These are pretty important meetings and audiences but he approaches them seemingly as a humble, average Mahmoud (a much more common name than Joe).

I've always heard that Ahmadinejad just wants to come across as a regular person. He's not part of the Iranian elite, although he surely does work for them. He doesn't have huge investments inside and outside Iran to worry about unlike his opponent in the last election, Hashemi Rajsanjani. He joined the revolution and fought in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s as a young man. This low key style is probably a carefully cultivated image to encourage the Iranian people to relate to him. Still the appearance of his khaki jacket and dress shirt is perhaps starting to become legendary like Nehru's jacket and Castro's fatigues. Maybe in a world of flawless, sculpted politicians, it's refreshing to see something different.

I don't know why I feel this is worthy of mention but it's certainly noteworthy. I suppose that when I do see him in a full Armani suit with tie, I'll assume that something is wrong. It's bound to happen someday, isn't it?

Schoolyard Lessons

"It is time for Iran to make a choice," George W Bush told a convention of US veterans a few days ago. "We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

The question no one is asking is why not? Why can't Iran join the nuclear club?

Obviously Iran has many problems: they are only barely democratic, still find it necessary to torture their citizens and are a little confused about the Holocaust (to say the least). But the argument that they are just plain evil doesn't cut it.

The existing nuclear weapon states each have their own issues. The Americans keep invading some countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) and bullying others (Cuba, Venezuela). The Chinese are still occupying and slowly eroding the character of Tibet, they could teach the Iranians a lesson or two about torture and certainly are anything from democratic. Israel has been occupying and humiliating an entire people since 1967 and looks poised to steal much of their land unilaterally under the auspices of peace in the coming years. India is democratic and reluctantly nuclear but still occupies and subjects Kashmir and battles separatists in its north east. Compared with Pakistan, Iran seems an angel. And don't get me started about Russia with its oligarchs and new Czar.

What makes these places special that they get to maintain nuclear arsenals? Why us and not them?

This situation is like a schoolyard with a group of little boys. When one kid has something all the kids want it. When I was a boy it was new running shoes and starter hats. We would do anything to possess them. But when the kid with all the fancy stuff got rid of something or offered it to some other kid, that kid didn't want it anymore. It had lost its prestige, its specialness, if that other kid no longer wanted it.

Maybe it's time the US and the other nuclear powers gave up their weapons to stop all this childishness. Then other states would have no reason to seek out weapons. The nuclear weapon states are obliged to disarm under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty they signed with Iran. You see Iran isn't the only one with obligations under the treaty. The longer the nuclear powers stall and modernize their arsenals the more hypocritical they become in the eyes of the world.

The truth is that Iran is trying to strike a balance by going nuclear. There are two ways of balancing out this situation. Either all parties have these worst of weapons or none do. The choice is ours.