This is kinda tricky, but you gotta follow me on this, OK? First of all, you have to be clear what Total Fina Elf is. So, here’s a VERY brief description:
Another company that stands to lose prospects is the French company Total Fina Elf . Before it became part of Total, Elf negotiated a production-sharing contract with Iraq, which Total inherited.
Total Fina Elf, a French company, and Lukoil, a Russian company, controlled pretty much all of Iraq’s oil reserves. A lot of people speculated this was all about oil, but now they’re missing the obvious:
Now open this PDF a new browser:
These instructions are critical, and a little tricky, so we’ll do it the easy way:
Go to page 19.
Look at line 5
Looks like the person on the income statement made about $100,000 in 2002 from their investiment in Total Fina Elf.
Now look back at the top of the that page and tell me who’s name’s on it.
Yup, it ain’t George Bush.
That strikes me as a major conflict of interest. Kerry stands to profit if the US loses in Iraq.
21
Aug
I have some advice for Kerry: Drop the Vietnam issue, NOW! This is not doing him any good at all. He just seems to open one can of worms up after another, it provides nothing substantive about his character, and quite frankly, whether he was a hero or not is totally negated by the actions he took after his time there. Bush’s military career is non-descript, reflecting that of most of the US at that time. What Bush has not done is let that can of worms regarding his missing few months get any bigger. The issue kinda sticks there, but Kerry has effectively dwarfed Bush’s one weak spot by revealing several questionable actions of his own in his effort to portray himself as the military hero come to save the US. Namely:
1. Cambodia – In three prominent situations, Kerry told of spending Christmas Eve 1968 IN Cambodia. He further pushed the button by stating he was getting shot at by drunken friendly fire while President Nixon denied they were even there. Needless to say, this opened several questions about his character as there wa no proof he or anyone else was ever in Cambodia at that time, there is evidence he was nowhere near Cambodia, and Nixon wouldn’t become President for a month after his stated time there. HE was so confident of his tale that he told it on the US Senate floor, a 1979 interview, and comparing his adventures to those of “Apocalypse Now“. It obviously never happened as he changed that passage in his book.
2. The Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry. Bush pretty much ignored the people who came out saying he was AWOL for a time in Alabama. IT made the rounds and disappeared. Kerry, not taking a hint, has absolutely gone bonkers against these guys. He speaks about them, he criticizes them constantly, accuses them of being a pawn for Bush ( DUH! ), and now has filed suit against them. What has this effectively done?
Go ahead and try to order this book, see how long it takes to get a copy. Those guys will be millionaires now thanks to all the Kerry advertising on their behalf. Everyone wants to know what all the stink is about, thanks to Kerry. The message that could have been ignored and gone away is now the #1 best seller in the US. Bad move John.
3. The medals flap just won’t go away either. The rules in Vietnam were a lot different before and after that conflict. It wasn’t hard to get a medal. I don’t doubt that under the terms of the Vietnam War Kerry did what it took to get those medals, but it didn’t automatically qualify him as a hero. He’s saying it did. So, all those guys that didn’t feel it automatically made him a hero became resentful and said so. Kerry could have ignored them, but no, he has to attack them as well. Enter yet another hot button debate over whether he was being shot at or not, the size and penetration of the shrapnel, whether he intentionally cut off another boat to pull the guy out of the water, whether the “V” is authentic or not, etc. etc. etc..
4. The Swifties lawsuit. Kerry claims he has evidence that Bush/Cheney is coordinating the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry 527. Not a good move. He is claiming that Republicans close to Bush have spent $250,000 to smear him. That’s all fine and good, but a debate had come and gone earlier about Ms. Kerry’s connections to moveon.org through the Tides Foundation. It had pretty much died a non-eventful death. I bet you that little debate rears its ugly head again. Secondly, 527′s are spending $60,000,000 against the Swifties $250,000. That don’t look too good either. Ignore these guys John, you’re sinking your own ship.
5. The post Vietnam interview. Kerry makes a lot of claims in that Senate speech that helped excite the US public against the Vietnam Vets returning home. That is the main theme of the Swift Boat guy’s latest commerical. It ran in three states, it didn’t run in the other 47. Kerry made such an issue of it by speaking and suing, the news media has shown that ad in all 50 states now. It’s pretty harsh on Kerry by using his own words. Bad move John, if you had ignored it, the other 47 states would not have had to see it.
6. The medals flap. part II. I see this one returning, again, because the issue of what medals he got and why are being raised again. In order to prove himself, he’ll whip out those medals to prove the “V” is in the right place. Problem is, he supposedly tossed those medals in the river after the war. Don’t do it John, they’re questioning those medals, ignore them. You’ve raised too much doubt by fighting every little fire there is already.
Move on, and hit the topics hard that matter to the people. What will you do specifically for the economy? What will you do specifically for the environment? Take your voting record and use it to illustrate your history of supporting the issues you’re supporting now. Etc..
But whatever you do, don’t keep harping on your war hero status. It’s worn thin, no one really cares that much, it makes you look really bad, and quite frankly, you can’t keep stonewalling substantive issues forever.
20
Aug
I get a lot of my topics from discussions on The Motley Fool. There are a handful of posters that look at the “big picture” as I try to do as well. Kentm is one of those. We have had a lot of discussions on oil supply with a lot of speculative scenarios. He’s more of a fatalist in that regard than I am. However, a truism when discussing the topic of oil, is how long will it last? Hubbert’s Peak, or Peak Oil, is a well calculated scenario of when the world’s oil supply will peak, and therefore become a more scarce commodity. When will it happen? Well, even Hubbert is a little vague. However, this article does explain the concept and scenarious of Peak Oil more clearly than anything I have ever read before. And of course, it comes courtesy of Kent.
According to this model, the Peak will occur somewhere between 2026 ( my reitrement year ) and 2047. Although 20 something years sounds like a fairly long time, when it comes to weening the planet off it’s addiction to petroleum products, that’s not nearly enough time. Now, the problem Hubbert’s model gives you is that once supply peaks, it drops off FAST. AS demand increases while supply decreases, the proportion eats itself up rather quickly. A fraction of a fraction is much smaller than multiplying by fractions. In other words, once it peaks, it’s over pretty quick.
That raised yet another question from Kent, Hubbert’s Peak very simply graphs supply vs demand and makes it dirt simple to understand. However, there are intangibles to it. If the US aggressively pursues alternative energy resources and makes them standard energy supplies accross the country, the Peak Oil will be pushed back. The question, therefore, is “what is the political risk premium on supply” and could you graph it?
1. In order to plot something like that, you’d have to have two coordinating points, what would those be?
2. Would the primary concern be domestic or foreign ( or both )? In order to do what’s right for the US public, hard foreign policies would have to be addressed.
There is some precedent to the risk premium that could be quantified. The recent debate over drilling in ANWR I would think would be an oil supply political risk indicator:
Sixty percent of the 1,000 likely voters polled said drilling for oil in ANWR will do little or nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. In contrast, 30 percent said opening ANWR to oil drilling is a key part of national energy strategy that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
When they took it to a broader speculation of “Americans’, it came to this:
A Zogby International survey, conducted for The Wilderness Society, found that 51 percent of Americans oppose the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while 36 percent said Congress should open the ANWR to oil drilling.
In that case, I would put the risk premium at negative 64, a horribly politcally risky move. So, if you graphed the US public over a period of time on domestic supply, it wouldn’t look very good, but you’d have your graph.
If you addressed it as a political risk, I would look at the same issue based on congressional voting records:
Last year, a bill to open the coastal plain of the refuge passed the House but not the Senate, where eight Republicans voted with the Democrats against drilling.
The risk factor politically is apparently a negative number right now as well as both Alaska and California were tossed around and failed.
In order to graph it, I would look at domestic drilling votes over a period of time and plot the negative votes using 50 as a base in the Senate, and 217 being the baseline for the House.
Then, of course, you’d have the foreign risk factor to consider. I don’t really consider the opinions of foreign people or dignitaries the issue, but moreso, how the US public would perceive the relations with other countries if the President had to make hard decisions in regards to supply ( see lhaselden’s NUMEROUS posts ). I can’t think of any consistent poll that would reflect that, or any set of numbers that would consider that either.
The bottom line is that I don’t really think there is a rock solid base to work from. There’s too much data to make it a pretty graph. Consider, if President Bush did ramrod the ANWR issue down the country’s throat, against huge opposition ( 64%? ), BUT, Iraq suddenly kicked production up to levels never seen before and the price of gas suddenly dropped to $1.00, my bet is the public and political opposition to the ANWR drilling would evaporate overnight, even though the ANWR drilling would have had nothing to do with the sudden surge in supply.
A second example is even though supply increased earlier this year ( a perceived good thing ), the fact the feds were replinishing their stockpile and therefore temporarily increasing demand, along with other factors, suddenly caused the speculators to go nuts and run the price up anyway. Ergo, negativ political risk even though the supply increased.
It’s just too vague IMO. You could graph parts of the equation, but more parts are based on perception and I don’t think you can make a worthwhile chart based on perception. It is a valid concept tho. As we get closer to Hubbert’s Peak, that political risk factor will wane as the price of gas soars. A president, in order to be most effective, needs to know exactly when ANWR and the coasts are politically doable and act fast. This perceived graph would be just the tool to do it. I’m just apparently not the man to get it done. Maybe y’all can help Kent and me:
20
Aug
( This poll has been moved to a new provider. As such, the totals have been reset. )
19
Aug
One heck of a post from Betty of The Motley Fool. I’m not even going to quote or paraphrase, just read it if you wanna.
I don’t know if you have to register to read Fool posts or not. If you do, it’s worth the trouble. Tons of excellent content in their discussion groups.
18
Aug
Harkin: Cheney’s comments ‘cowardly’
“When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil,” said Harkin.
“He’ll be tough, but he’ll be tough with someone else’s kid’s blood,” said Harkin
Harkin’s voting record on being tough with someone else’s kid’s blood:
Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Seems Harkin’s pretty tough with someone else’s kid’s blood.
Cheney’s voting record on the same issue?
He has no record, vice presidents can’t vote unless a tie.
Now, who’s tougher with someone else’s kid’s blood?
Shamelessly stealing from MLD38 again from The Motley Fool:
John Kerry, ABC’s This Week, 8/1/04:
…JOHN KERRY: If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us.”…
AND NOW 16 days later:
August 17, 2004
Kerry Objects to Bush’s Troop Recall Plan
Kerry addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Ohio today, arguing that the troop redeployment is a bad idea because some of our allies may not like it…
18
Aug
Last Summer ( June, 2003 ), I got an invite to attend the annual White House picnic. I had been before, but this one seemed a little more special than the rest. it was the first big event I could take my son to. He did great the whole night, being cute, attracting compliments from ladies and gentlemen alike. Leon Panetta couldn’t get enough of him. Dick Cheney even smiled at him ( he darted in front of him as he made his entrance ). All was going perfect. That is, until we got our chance for the photo-op. It was a hot muggy day in DC, but had a nice breeze blowing. However, when you get into a crowd, the breeze is totally blocked, and you get even hotter and muggier. Brendan didn’t like that at all. Right when we got to President Bush, he started squawling. Now, my baby never whimpers or cries, he SCREAMS. By the time we got to actually meet President Bush and have our picture taken, he was throwing a full blown fit. Nothing anyone could do at that point was going to calm him down. So, we took the pics anyway. Here’s one of them.
After we took the pic, since Bush was smiling and having a big time, Brendan calmed down and was back to his pleasant, charming self. We don’t have any pictures of that.
I try to keep an even opinion when it comes to politics. I really do. I’ve been in, involved in, supported people, and done just about everything in politics one could imagine.
One of the very first things I learned being involved in politics was that losing a race wasn’t the end of the world. Sometimes, it’s actually the best thing that could happen ( establishing a grass roots organization, regardless of the outcome of the race, can set a person up to run for a higher office ).
The second thing I learned was that if you deal honestly with the people you are working against, they usually don’t hold it against you. I have been forced into positions where I have had to support one friend against another. Even if I didn’t support one or the other, I generally got trashed by one or both. So, support one, make it clear, and shoot straight with the one your “not necessarily opposing”. Supporting someone is not the same thing as opposing someone else. It doesn’t always work, but it helps mend fences later on.
I also have learned that no matter how hard I try to look at things from a disinterested bystander who truly understands how it all works, I wind up picking sides once I’ve tore into their history. I don’t rely on poltical dogma, I rely on what they’ve actually done.
I post a lot on politics on The Motley Fool. I have let everyone I know know that I support Bush. However, I’ve tried to give perspectives of the political process in a pragmatic way. Basically, showing how things really work as opposed to the rhetoric being thrown at us. What that has done over the last couple of months, is turn a lukewarm Republican into a rabid-anti-Kerry Republican. Sure, I’ve posted a lot of contradictions, lies, and deceptions Kerry has done over his career, that’s no biggie and you’ll see it in any race. What has pushed me over the edge is the reaction of Kerry supporters on the discussion groups. They honestly will not explore their candidate. They are willing to buy into the blatant falsehoods ( Cambodia ). They are too willing to take the rhetoric and dismiss his actions for 12 years ( stem cell research ). Even if there are facts to support Kerry’s position in a debatable topic ( Swift Boat Vets ), more often than not they won’t research the issue, but will just spew the Kerry response over and over and over. Bush ain’t perfect, but I can defend most of his actions very simply by delving into the facts. Any supporter of Kerry that does that is OK in my book. But, what I have come to figure out in this race is a LOT of Kerry’s support is not supporting Kerry or his ideas and beliefs, they are voting for “Anyone But Bush”. Me fear is that in the zeal to elect Anyone But Bush, they’re getting something a lot worse than what they were voting against in the first place. Secondly, if Kerry were to get elected on an “Anyone But Bush” wave of support, he has no support once he’s in office. A lot of Bush’s problems have been due to the lack of a public mandate, Kerry will have even less. And given the challenges this country faces right now, and the hard decisions that have to be made because of them, a President with no mandate and no real public support will be useless for four years and probably out. And that’s the very last thing this country needs right now.
Support your candidate, don’t vote against someone else.
And, in following my own recommendation, I’ve joined the Bush/Cheney04 webring.
I will still try to look at this race from a mechanical angle, examining what the candidates do and why. But, I don’t want it to be any secret who I’m supporting either.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry does not plan to visit Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley because he’s concerned his campaign entourage could distract from recovery efforts, he said Saturday……
Kerry left Hood River to continue on his vacation at his family home in Ketchum, Idaho.
He’s so concerned about the victims in Florida he has to take a vacation.
Not a good PR move IMO.
Him and Teresa should have taken some of that money Teresa is spending on radical envirnmental groups and used it to help those in Florida. That would be a good PR move IMO.
