Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 893

The true tragedy of Cecil the lion the media has overlooked

When Walter Palmer, a wealthy dentist from Minnesota, killed Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe last July, people all around the word were sickened and outraged. Action was quick. After the news broke, late-night talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to read Palmer the riot act, then helped raise $150,000 in donations in less than 24 hours to support Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, the Oxford, U.K.-based nonprofit that had been tasked with tracking Cecil's location and activities. Within a month, thanks to pressure from the Humane Society of the U.S., American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines announced bans in the transport of “trophies” (i.e., animal parts) from Africa’s so-called big five species: the African lion, African elephant, Cape buffalo, African leopard and white/black rhinoceros. Beyond these specific achievements, a silver lining to emerge from Cecil’s tragic killing has been the dramatic increase in the global awareness of the obscenity of trophy hunting. “Dr. Walter Palmer has done something worthwhile after all,” wrote Capt. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and former star of Animal Planet's “Whale Wars,” in a Facebook post. “His special combination of vanity, smugness, greed, arrogance and stupidity has taken something which happens all the time, usually out of sight and out of mind, and has elevated it to international recognition.” But while the salughter of African wildlife has been elevated to the global stage as never before, there is a larger story behind Cecil’s death that has largely been overlooked by the media. That story is the role played by Safari Club International (SCI), a stealthy and powerful pro-hunting group that masquerades as an organization dedicated to “promoting wildlife conservation,” according to its mission statement. Wildlife conservation could not be further from the truth of what SCI does. In fact, SCI’s activities — both in the wild and on Capitol Hill — have had a destructive impact on wildlife and wildlife policies on the state, federal and even international levels. With some 50,000 members, 150 chapters and over$10 million in revenue ($3 million from annual membership dues and another $7 million raised from its annual convention), Safari Club International exercises a substantial amount of lobbying power, shaping anti-wildlife conservation policies that only satisfy trophy hunters’ bloodlust, negatively impacting wildlife on a global scale. In Africa, SCI has been a longtime driving force in the sustained killing of the continent’s lions, contributing to the species’ sad, rapid decline: A loss of more than 50 percent of the lion population over the last three decades alone. Today, there are fewer than 40,000 African lions left in the wild. And even though two-thirds of them remain unprotected, SCI has for many years worked to block the conservation efforts of several wildlife protection groups seeking to list the lion as endangered. Thankfully, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recentlyannounced the African lion will be protected under the Endangered Species Act, a ruling that will go into effect in February. The nonprofit In Defense of Animals describes SCI as “the most ruthless trophy hunting organization.” On its website, IDA describes the activities of the group:

Clearly leading the list of voracious hunting clubs with an appalling callousness towards wild animals worldwide, is the Safari Club International (SCI), a hunting advocacy group that promotes competitive trophy hunting throughout the world, even of rare species, and not shying away from canned hunts, through an elaborate awards program. The SCI continues to create and feed a culture glamorizing death and violence globally, across political lines, international borders, and against wildlife and even people. Fortunes are made on the back of millions of animals, whose lives are taken by trophy hunters for the sake of killing in an endless spiral of competition....

Most people would be shocked to learn about the length these wildlife killers go to legally (and illegally) murder the largest, most beautiful and “exotic’ animals—the rarer the animal, the better....

SCI responded to Cecil’s killing by suspending the memberships of Palmer and Theo Bronkhorst, a professional hunter and guide who helped Palmer slaughter the lion, stating, "those who intentionally take wildlife illegally should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent allowed by law." Indeed, the law is so important to SCI that it has devoted significant time and financial resources to change it in its favor. Primarily through its political and legal arm, the Department of Hunter Advocacy, SCI is knee-deep in state and federal legislative and judicial battles over how legal hunting is defined and regulated. “SCI lobbyists are a fixture in Washington,” In Defense of Animals reports. “Members are urged constantly to pressure their Congressional representatives for less wildlife protection and more hunting leniency, which is what concerns the SCI and nothing else.” In 1981, SCI, in cahoots with the National Rifle Association, argued against measures intended to strengthen the Lacey Act, a 1900 United States law that bans trafficking in illegal wildlife, such as the inclusion of a felony penalty. More recently, SCI worked closely with Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI) in crafting the pro-hunting bill H.R.1825. The bill, which was introduced in 2013, stalled in the Senate. It has been backed by the NRA and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, both of which, like SCI, wield significant influence on Capitol Hill. In addition to being criticized by environmental groups, the bill has been slammed by some pro-hunting conservation groups like the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation and Wilderness Watch for seeking to gut provisions in the Wilderness Act designed to keep some federal lands “untrammeled by man.” That same year, SCI introduced more than 20 pro-hunting bills to Congress. But beyond its lobbying work, what is most distressing about SCI, as Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson points out, is how the group glorifies a culture of death by celebrating the slaughter of animals — a ritual supported by an elaborate system that rewards killing. He writes:

What is truly despicable about this organization is that it encourages slaughter through awards. SCI’s record book system ranks the biggest tusks, horns, antlers, skulls and bodies of hunted animals. Hunters are rewarded with trophies for completing a “Grand Slam.”

There are 15 “Grand Slams.” The ones that cover Africa are:

The African Big Five Club (African lion, African leopard, African elephant, African buffalo and an African rhinoceros. “Dangerous Game of Africa” (requires a minimum of five from the African lion, African leopard, African elephant, African rhinoceros, African buffalo, Hippopotamus and Nile Crocodile) “African 29” (African lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo, and a small cat, eland, bongo,kudu, nyala, sitatunga, bushbuck, sable antelope, roan antelope, oryx/gemsbok, waterbuck, lechwe, kob or puku, reedbuck or rhebok, wildebeest, hartebeest, impala, gazelle, pygmy antelope, springbok, dik-dik, bush duiker, forest duiker, nubian ibex, aoudad, hippopotamus, and wild pig) “Cats of the World” (minimum of four of: lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, cougar, lynx, cougar or puma, serval, carcal, African golden cat or bobcat)

...There is the Hunting Achievement Award that requires a minimum of 125 animals, or 60 if hunting with a bow. And for women they have the Diana award, given to women who “have excelled in international big game hunting.” And finally there is the obscenely named “World Conservation & Hunting Award,” given to hunters who have killed on six continents and have killed more than 300 species. This “esteemed” award goes to the killer who has taken all 14 Grand Slams, the 23 Inner Circles, Pinnacle of Achievement (fourth) and the Crowning Achievement Award.

It is this award system that is driving thousands of wealthy primarily white men and a few women to spend millions of dollars stalking animals around the world for the sole purpose of killing the in the name of vanity and self-glorification.

In his book Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy , Matthew Scully, who calls himself a “pro-life vegan conservative” addresses SCI's unethical and illogical argument that sport hunting is a necessary form of population control. It is a truly speciesist argument if there ever was one, giving Homo sapiens primacy over all other sentient beings. Scully writes:

Wildlife, we are constantly told, would run loose across our towns and cities were it not for the sport hunters to control their population, as birds would blanket the skies without the culling services of Ducks Unlimited and other groups. Yet here they are breeding wild animals, year after year replenishing the stock, all for the sole purpose of selling and killing them, deer and bears and elephants so many products being readied for the market. Animals such as deer, we are told, have no predators in many areas, and therefore need systematic culling. Yet when attempts are made to reintroduce natural predators such as wolves and coyotes into these very areas, sport hunters themselves are the first to resist it. Weaker animals in the wild, we hear, will only die miserable deaths by starvation and exposure without sport hunters to control their population. Yet it's the bigger, stronger animals they're killing and wounding — the very opposite of natural selection — often with bows and pistols that only compound and prolong the victim's suffering.

While the sport hunting of animals is unnatural, it is also exceedingly unfair. Marc Bekoff, a renowned animal behaviorist biologist who specializes in non-human cognition and emotion, is on a mission to help people understand that animals have many of the same feelings humans do, and that understanding should be the basis for our ethical treatment of them. “Hunting and fishing involve killing animals with devices (such as guns) for which the animals have not evolved natural defenses,” he writes in his book Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect . “No animal on earth has adequate defense against a human armed with a gun, a bow and arrow, a trap that can maim, a snare that can strangle, or a fishing lure designed for the sole purpose of fooling fish into thinking they have found something to eat.” Beneath the lack of fairness and morality and the appalling level of cruelty of sport hunters lies something quite basic — and ultimately pathetic. The late novelist John D. MacDonald knew something about the minds of psychopathic killers. In his 1965 novel A Deadly Shade of Gold, he addressed the arrested emotional development of sport hunters, bluntly stating, “It is the search for balls.” Sadly for the world’s wildlife, that search has a powerful ally in Washington: Safari Club International.   When Walter Palmer, a wealthy dentist from Minnesota, killed Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe last July, people all around the word were sickened and outraged. Action was quick. After the news broke, late-night talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to read Palmer the riot act, then helped raise $150,000 in donations in less than 24 hours to support Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, the Oxford, U.K.-based nonprofit that had been tasked with tracking Cecil's location and activities. Within a month, thanks to pressure from the Humane Society of the U.S., American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines announced bans in the transport of “trophies” (i.e., animal parts) from Africa’s so-called big five species: the African lion, African elephant, Cape buffalo, African leopard and white/black rhinoceros. Beyond these specific achievements, a silver lining to emerge from Cecil’s tragic killing has been the dramatic increase in the global awareness of the obscenity of trophy hunting. “Dr. Walter Palmer has done something worthwhile after all,” wrote Capt. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and former star of Animal Planet's “Whale Wars,” in a Facebook post. “His special combination of vanity, smugness, greed, arrogance and stupidity has taken something which happens all the time, usually out of sight and out of mind, and has elevated it to international recognition.” But while the salughter of African wildlife has been elevated to the global stage as never before, there is a larger story behind Cecil’s death that has largely been overlooked by the media. That story is the role played by Safari Club International (SCI), a stealthy and powerful pro-hunting group that masquerades as an organization dedicated to “promoting wildlife conservation,” according to its mission statement. Wildlife conservation could not be further from the truth of what SCI does. In fact, SCI’s activities — both in the wild and on Capitol Hill — have had a destructive impact on wildlife and wildlife policies on the state, federal and even international levels. With some 50,000 members, 150 chapters and over$10 million in revenue ($3 million from annual membership dues and another $7 million raised from its annual convention), Safari Club International exercises a substantial amount of lobbying power, shaping anti-wildlife conservation policies that only satisfy trophy hunters’ bloodlust, negatively impacting wildlife on a global scale. In Africa, SCI has been a longtime driving force in the sustained killing of the continent’s lions, contributing to the species’ sad, rapid decline: A loss of more than 50 percent of the lion population over the last three decades alone. Today, there are fewer than 40,000 African lions left in the wild. And even though two-thirds of them remain unprotected, SCI has for many years worked to block the conservation efforts of several wildlife protection groups seeking to list the lion as endangered. Thankfully, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recentlyannounced the African lion will be protected under the Endangered Species Act, a ruling that will go into effect in February. The nonprofit In Defense of Animals describes SCI as “the most ruthless trophy hunting organization.” On its website, IDA describes the activities of the group:

Clearly leading the list of voracious hunting clubs with an appalling callousness towards wild animals worldwide, is the Safari Club International (SCI), a hunting advocacy group that promotes competitive trophy hunting throughout the world, even of rare species, and not shying away from canned hunts, through an elaborate awards program. The SCI continues to create and feed a culture glamorizing death and violence globally, across political lines, international borders, and against wildlife and even people. Fortunes are made on the back of millions of animals, whose lives are taken by trophy hunters for the sake of killing in an endless spiral of competition....

Most people would be shocked to learn about the length these wildlife killers go to legally (and illegally) murder the largest, most beautiful and “exotic’ animals—the rarer the animal, the better....

SCI responded to Cecil’s killing by suspending the memberships of Palmer and Theo Bronkhorst, a professional hunter and guide who helped Palmer slaughter the lion, stating, "those who intentionally take wildlife illegally should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent allowed by law." Indeed, the law is so important to SCI that it has devoted significant time and financial resources to change it in its favor. Primarily through its political and legal arm, the Department of Hunter Advocacy, SCI is knee-deep in state and federal legislative and judicial battles over how legal hunting is defined and regulated. “SCI lobbyists are a fixture in Washington,” In Defense of Animals reports. “Members are urged constantly to pressure their Congressional representatives for less wildlife protection and more hunting leniency, which is what concerns the SCI and nothing else.” In 1981, SCI, in cahoots with the National Rifle Association, argued against measures intended to strengthen the Lacey Act, a 1900 United States law that bans trafficking in illegal wildlife, such as the inclusion of a felony penalty. More recently, SCI worked closely with Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI) in crafting the pro-hunting bill H.R.1825. The bill, which was introduced in 2013, stalled in the Senate. It has been backed by the NRA and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, both of which, like SCI, wield significant influence on Capitol Hill. In addition to being criticized by environmental groups, the bill has been slammed by some pro-hunting conservation groups like the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation and Wilderness Watch for seeking to gut provisions in the Wilderness Act designed to keep some federal lands “untrammeled by man.” That same year, SCI introduced more than 20 pro-hunting bills to Congress. But beyond its lobbying work, what is most distressing about SCI, as Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson points out, is how the group glorifies a culture of death by celebrating the slaughter of animals — a ritual supported by an elaborate system that rewards killing. He writes:

What is truly despicable about this organization is that it encourages slaughter through awards. SCI’s record book system ranks the biggest tusks, horns, antlers, skulls and bodies of hunted animals. Hunters are rewarded with trophies for completing a “Grand Slam.”

There are 15 “Grand Slams.” The ones that cover Africa are:

The African Big Five Club (African lion, African leopard, African elephant, African buffalo and an African rhinoceros. “Dangerous Game of Africa” (requires a minimum of five from the African lion, African leopard, African elephant, African rhinoceros, African buffalo, Hippopotamus and Nile Crocodile) “African 29” (African lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo, and a small cat, eland, bongo,kudu, nyala, sitatunga, bushbuck, sable antelope, roan antelope, oryx/gemsbok, waterbuck, lechwe, kob or puku, reedbuck or rhebok, wildebeest, hartebeest, impala, gazelle, pygmy antelope, springbok, dik-dik, bush duiker, forest duiker, nubian ibex, aoudad, hippopotamus, and wild pig) “Cats of the World” (minimum of four of: lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, cougar, lynx, cougar or puma, serval, carcal, African golden cat or bobcat)

...There is the Hunting Achievement Award that requires a minimum of 125 animals, or 60 if hunting with a bow. And for women they have the Diana award, given to women who “have excelled in international big game hunting.” And finally there is the obscenely named “World Conservation & Hunting Award,” given to hunters who have killed on six continents and have killed more than 300 species. This “esteemed” award goes to the killer who has taken all 14 Grand Slams, the 23 Inner Circles, Pinnacle of Achievement (fourth) and the Crowning Achievement Award.

It is this award system that is driving thousands of wealthy primarily white men and a few women to spend millions of dollars stalking animals around the world for the sole purpose of killing the in the name of vanity and self-glorification.

In his book Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy , Matthew Scully, who calls himself a “pro-life vegan conservative” addresses SCI's unethical and illogical argument that sport hunting is a necessary form of population control. It is a truly speciesist argument if there ever was one, giving Homo sapiens primacy over all other sentient beings. Scully writes:

Wildlife, we are constantly told, would run loose across our towns and cities were it not for the sport hunters to control their population, as birds would blanket the skies without the culling services of Ducks Unlimited and other groups. Yet here they are breeding wild animals, year after year replenishing the stock, all for the sole purpose of selling and killing them, deer and bears and elephants so many products being readied for the market. Animals such as deer, we are told, have no predators in many areas, and therefore need systematic culling. Yet when attempts are made to reintroduce natural predators such as wolves and coyotes into these very areas, sport hunters themselves are the first to resist it. Weaker animals in the wild, we hear, will only die miserable deaths by starvation and exposure without sport hunters to control their population. Yet it's the bigger, stronger animals they're killing and wounding — the very opposite of natural selection — often with bows and pistols that only compound and prolong the victim's suffering.

While the sport hunting of animals is unnatural, it is also exceedingly unfair. Marc Bekoff, a renowned animal behaviorist biologist who specializes in non-human cognition and emotion, is on a mission to help people understand that animals have many of the same feelings humans do, and that understanding should be the basis for our ethical treatment of them. “Hunting and fishing involve killing animals with devices (such as guns) for which the animals have not evolved natural defenses,” he writes in his book Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect . “No animal on earth has adequate defense against a human armed with a gun, a bow and arrow, a trap that can maim, a snare that can strangle, or a fishing lure designed for the sole purpose of fooling fish into thinking they have found something to eat.” Beneath the lack of fairness and morality and the appalling level of cruelty of sport hunters lies something quite basic — and ultimately pathetic. The late novelist John D. MacDonald knew something about the minds of psychopathic killers. In his 1965 novel A Deadly Shade of Gold, he addressed the arrested emotional development of sport hunters, bluntly stating, “It is the search for balls.” Sadly for the world’s wildlife, that search has a powerful ally in Washington: Safari Club International.  

Continue Reading...

Fox’s miserable debate night: How Trump & Cruz ran wild while the network look out of its depth

On Wednesday, New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman, who is as plugged-in to what goes on at Fox as anyone, wrote that the network is experiencing something of a crisis of confidence lately, thanks to a power struggle between CEO Roger Ailes and owner Rupert Murdoch. Fox, Sherman reported, "isn’t functioning like the disciplined campaign it’s historically been. 'There's no directive on anything,' one anchor [said]. 'There used to be directives on everything, and now there's not, which is kind of nice.'"

Anybody watching Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, which aired on Fox Business, could see evidence of this right in front of them. Moderators Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo delivered a baggy, tonally bizarre and deeply inconsistent forum. The debate presented viewers with a number of intriguing spectacles—chief among them the increasingly realistic prospect of the GOP actually nominating Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, who both dominated the evening to a bloodcurdling extent. But it also showed Fox falling down on the job, something it actually does rather rarely if you judge it on its own terms.

Fox takes its role as a key GOP player very seriously–contrast its remorseless eviction of Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina fromThursday's joust with CNN's caving to Paul back in December, for instance—and, because it is deeply invested in the outcome of the primary process, it can usually be counted on to keep the candidates on their toes and put on a cohesive show, even if left-leaning audiences might not like the ways it does that. (Trump's feud with Megyn Kelly didn't come out of nowhere.)

Not on Thursday, though.

The first section didn't feature any debating at all; instead, the candidates just got to deliver applause lines for 90 seconds each, while Cavuto and Bartiromo asked the kinds of leading, friendly questions anyone would love to get. The leading question theme continued throughout the night, giving the debate an edge that was hard-right even for Fox. Bartiromo asked John Kasich what it "said" about the Democratic Party that a man like Bernie Sanders was popular. Cavuto asked Chris Christie to affirm the widely-debunked notion of a "Ferguson effect" on policing. Bartiromo asked Ben Carson if Hillary Clinton should be blamed for Bill Clinton's womanizing—a question seemingly ripped straight from Rush Limbaugh's dreams. When they weren't assisting the candidates so ably, Cavuto and Bartiromo led them, and the audience, on a virtual roller coaster ride. The stump speech section was followed by the already-infamous series of arguments between Trump and Cruz over birtherism and "New York values," which pushed every other candidate completely to the side and, for good measure, took up about ten minutes of time on strange detours. Not that Trump or Cruz were complaining; each got possibly the best moment they've ever had in the entire campaign out of the slugfest.

Just when it was easy to wonder why all of this was happening on a business network, Cavuto and Bartiromo veered into a wooly, torturous section on China, taxes and entitlements. (Others can judge the merits of these exchanges; the minutiae of the value-added tax is not one of my strong suits.) By this point, any pretense that the moderators had a handle on time limits, or the clock in general, had gone out the window. The candidates all went on interminable, free-association monologues, seemingly at times of their own choosing. As the minutes ticked by, Cavuto and Bartiromo seemed more and more tentative. Not surprisingly, the debate went over by about a half hour.

Fox will no doubt be satisfied with the overall product, given the Trump-Cruz battle and the sure-to-be astronomical ratings, but it has possibly never looked more unsure of itself, and more amateurish, than it did on Thursday night. It has a chance to redeem itself on January 28th. Then, the Fox News team of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace will handle things. If they can't get it right, then there really is something going badly off-course inside Fox.

On Wednesday, New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman, who is as plugged-in to what goes on at Fox as anyone, wrote that the network is experiencing something of a crisis of confidence lately, thanks to a power struggle between CEO Roger Ailes and owner Rupert Murdoch. Fox, Sherman reported, "isn’t functioning like the disciplined campaign it’s historically been. 'There's no directive on anything,' one anchor [said]. 'There used to be directives on everything, and now there's not, which is kind of nice.'"

Anybody watching Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, which aired on Fox Business, could see evidence of this right in front of them. Moderators Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo delivered a baggy, tonally bizarre and deeply inconsistent forum. The debate presented viewers with a number of intriguing spectacles—chief among them the increasingly realistic prospect of the GOP actually nominating Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, who both dominated the evening to a bloodcurdling extent. But it also showed Fox falling down on the job, something it actually does rather rarely if you judge it on its own terms.

Fox takes its role as a key GOP player very seriously–contrast its remorseless eviction of Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina fromThursday's joust with CNN's caving to Paul back in December, for instance—and, because it is deeply invested in the outcome of the primary process, it can usually be counted on to keep the candidates on their toes and put on a cohesive show, even if left-leaning audiences might not like the ways it does that. (Trump's feud with Megyn Kelly didn't come out of nowhere.)

Not on Thursday, though.

The first section didn't feature any debating at all; instead, the candidates just got to deliver applause lines for 90 seconds each, while Cavuto and Bartiromo asked the kinds of leading, friendly questions anyone would love to get. The leading question theme continued throughout the night, giving the debate an edge that was hard-right even for Fox. Bartiromo asked John Kasich what it "said" about the Democratic Party that a man like Bernie Sanders was popular. Cavuto asked Chris Christie to affirm the widely-debunked notion of a "Ferguson effect" on policing. Bartiromo asked Ben Carson if Hillary Clinton should be blamed for Bill Clinton's womanizing—a question seemingly ripped straight from Rush Limbaugh's dreams. When they weren't assisting the candidates so ably, Cavuto and Bartiromo led them, and the audience, on a virtual roller coaster ride. The stump speech section was followed by the already-infamous series of arguments between Trump and Cruz over birtherism and "New York values," which pushed every other candidate completely to the side and, for good measure, took up about ten minutes of time on strange detours. Not that Trump or Cruz were complaining; each got possibly the best moment they've ever had in the entire campaign out of the slugfest.

Just when it was easy to wonder why all of this was happening on a business network, Cavuto and Bartiromo veered into a wooly, torturous section on China, taxes and entitlements. (Others can judge the merits of these exchanges; the minutiae of the value-added tax is not one of my strong suits.) By this point, any pretense that the moderators had a handle on time limits, or the clock in general, had gone out the window. The candidates all went on interminable, free-association monologues, seemingly at times of their own choosing. As the minutes ticked by, Cavuto and Bartiromo seemed more and more tentative. Not surprisingly, the debate went over by about a half hour.

Fox will no doubt be satisfied with the overall product, given the Trump-Cruz battle and the sure-to-be astronomical ratings, but it has possibly never looked more unsure of itself, and more amateurish, than it did on Thursday night. It has a chance to redeem itself on January 28th. Then, the Fox News team of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace will handle things. If they can't get it right, then there really is something going badly off-course inside Fox.

Continue Reading...

Big moment for desperate Rubio: He crushes Cruz for his immigration flip-flops, but are GOP voters paying attention?

Marco Rubio's campaign was supposed to be the party's savior, especially as it became apparent that Jeb Bush, true to his roots as a trust fund baby, was collapsing in the face of real competition. But Rubio's campaign has been lackluster, with concerns being raised that he simply doesn't have the ground game amassed by Ted Cruz, Batman villain. Thursday night's debate quite possibly was his last real opportunity to turn the ship around. If it can be done, he did it in his full-throated attack on Cruz's flippity-floppy record on immigration. Cruz presents himself to hungry conservatives as the real deal, a true conservative whose allegedly authenticity is rooted in his evangelical Christianity. He may be crazy, but he seems like he really means it, and that perception of purity is really doing it for the right-wing base this year. But truthfully, he's even more a chameleon-like politician than most, a man devoid of any true beliefs besides his rock solid belief that he deserves to rule us all. And Rubio launched an extremely effective attack on this, using the issue that appears to be riling the right up more than most this year, immigration. During the debate, Rubio brought up Cruz's misrepresentation of his history on immigration. Cruz tried to wave it off in his usual way, with a condescending chuckle that implies that all attacks on him are mere "children saying silly things," but the punch obviously landed. In no small part, it's because Rubio rattled off, apparently from memory, Cruz's history of dancing around on this issue, a history that runs in direct contrast with Cruz's claim that he's taken a leadership position in cracking down on immigration.

Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards, now you say that you're against it. You used to support a 500 percent increase in the number of guest workers, now you say that you're against it. You used to support legalizing people that were here illegally, now you say you're against it. You used to say that you were in favor of birthright citizenship, now you say that you are against it.

Cruz tried to dismiss this as silly stuff ginned up by Rubio's opposition researchers, but in truth, it probably came from a recent Slate article by William Saletan that laid out, in a thoroughly researched timeline, how Cruz, far from being a leader for the hardline anti-immigration position, has wiggled and danced around, clearly more interested in angling for advantages than actually standing up for a coherent position. Cruz uses legalistic language to claim something that is clearly false — that he never supported giving undocumented immigrants some kind of legal status — and basically leans on the complexity of the record to avoid being called out on it. But that didn't stop Rubio and while his litany of Cruz's sins was probably not easy to parse for most viewers, the fact that he was able to roll it out was still pretty compelling. It clearly unnerved Cruz, as it should. His entire campaign is built on billing him as the last honest conservative, and exposing the fact that he's actually less principled and more slimy than most politicians could do irreparable damage. Will it work? Hard to say. It came late in the debate, when most viewers are too tired to be paying much attention. And even though Rubio framed it simply enough, it's still a complex argument, which can be a turnoff. And, as Saletan notes, Cruz is a spectacular liar who is fully capable of bamboozling his way out of this. But it was Rubio's last real chance to such some of the mystique out of the Ted Cruz image, and convince voters to settle for him. He made a good show of it. It was a truly impressive political attack and suggested he'd be formidable in a general election. If this doesn't work, nothing will.Marco Rubio's campaign was supposed to be the party's savior, especially as it became apparent that Jeb Bush, true to his roots as a trust fund baby, was collapsing in the face of real competition. But Rubio's campaign has been lackluster, with concerns being raised that he simply doesn't have the ground game amassed by Ted Cruz, Batman villain. Thursday night's debate quite possibly was his last real opportunity to turn the ship around. If it can be done, he did it in his full-throated attack on Cruz's flippity-floppy record on immigration. Cruz presents himself to hungry conservatives as the real deal, a true conservative whose allegedly authenticity is rooted in his evangelical Christianity. He may be crazy, but he seems like he really means it, and that perception of purity is really doing it for the right-wing base this year. But truthfully, he's even more a chameleon-like politician than most, a man devoid of any true beliefs besides his rock solid belief that he deserves to rule us all. And Rubio launched an extremely effective attack on this, using the issue that appears to be riling the right up more than most this year, immigration. During the debate, Rubio brought up Cruz's misrepresentation of his history on immigration. Cruz tried to wave it off in his usual way, with a condescending chuckle that implies that all attacks on him are mere "children saying silly things," but the punch obviously landed. In no small part, it's because Rubio rattled off, apparently from memory, Cruz's history of dancing around on this issue, a history that runs in direct contrast with Cruz's claim that he's taken a leadership position in cracking down on immigration.

Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards, now you say that you're against it. You used to support a 500 percent increase in the number of guest workers, now you say that you're against it. You used to support legalizing people that were here illegally, now you say you're against it. You used to say that you were in favor of birthright citizenship, now you say that you are against it.

Cruz tried to dismiss this as silly stuff ginned up by Rubio's opposition researchers, but in truth, it probably came from a recent Slate article by William Saletan that laid out, in a thoroughly researched timeline, how Cruz, far from being a leader for the hardline anti-immigration position, has wiggled and danced around, clearly more interested in angling for advantages than actually standing up for a coherent position. Cruz uses legalistic language to claim something that is clearly false — that he never supported giving undocumented immigrants some kind of legal status — and basically leans on the complexity of the record to avoid being called out on it. But that didn't stop Rubio and while his litany of Cruz's sins was probably not easy to parse for most viewers, the fact that he was able to roll it out was still pretty compelling. It clearly unnerved Cruz, as it should. His entire campaign is built on billing him as the last honest conservative, and exposing the fact that he's actually less principled and more slimy than most politicians could do irreparable damage. Will it work? Hard to say. It came late in the debate, when most viewers are too tired to be paying much attention. And even though Rubio framed it simply enough, it's still a complex argument, which can be a turnoff. And, as Saletan notes, Cruz is a spectacular liar who is fully capable of bamboozling his way out of this. But it was Rubio's last real chance to such some of the mystique out of the Ted Cruz image, and convince voters to settle for him. He made a good show of it. It was a truly impressive political attack and suggested he'd be formidable in a general election. If this doesn't work, nothing will.

Continue Reading...

“New York City is not America”: Right-wing Twitter more unhinged than candidates during GOP presidential debate

It's over. The first Republican debate of 2016 may have had fewer bodies on stage, but much of the same, tired conservative talking points were spouted with vigor and virtually no push-back -- only matched by the level of vitriol spread through right-wing Twitter. The night started off with approval and a shout out from 21st Century Fox head honcho Rupert Murdoch: https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/sta... But despite the well wishes, right-wing Twitter (and the South Carolina audience) were quick to egg on a more serious sparring match: https://twitter.com/Talkmaster/status... https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/statu... https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status... https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status... https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/stat... https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/6... https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/sta... The rest of Twitter just didn't seem up for the mocking at this tedious, sixth GOP debate: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/... https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/687... https://twitter.com/HayesBrown/status... https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/... https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/... https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/... https://twitter.com/GlazerBooHooHoo/s... https://twitter.com/KateBlackDC/statu... https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan/statu... https://twitter.com/katiezez/status/6... https://twitter.com/RepUnderwoodSC/st...

Continue Reading...

Trump and Cruz’s laughable patriotism clash: Who’s less American – Canadians or New Yorkers?

It's tempting to denounce Fox Business Network for focusing so much of Thursday's Republican debate on the silly fight between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz about whose birthplace is worse: Canada and New York City. On the other hand, it's not like the candidates have anything smarter to say about real issues – we're talking about men who think that briefly detaining soldiers trespassing in foreign waters is practically a declaration of war – so okay, let's talk about whose mother brought greater shame upon the family by where she gave birth. Things started off when Fox Business, no doubt aware that ratings are threatened by the fact that Republican debates are coming around more frequently than pizza night in some houses, went ahead and asked Ted Cruz about this stupid, Trump-inspired debate over whether a born citizen is a natural born citizen. Cruz's background as a lawyer revealed itself in his response. No short, pithy responses for him. He practically rolled out a projector and walked the crowd through a lengthy, multi-faceted argument in his own defense: Donald Trump is only saying this because he's desperate. Trump's own mother was a Scottish national. As a lawyer, he is better equipped to interpret law than Trump. And, of course, there was soaring rhetoric about how everyone on stage is an American, but he (posing, looking at the sky, impressed by his own profundity) has the courage to talk about issues that really matter, aka whatever internal polling says is scaring elderly white people these days.

.@tedcruz fired back at @realDonaldTrump over birther claims. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/VHOSRAXT1c

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) January 15, 2016

All just as well, but Cruz's dark genius as a politician is truly revealed in the rebuttal he has created for this attack, a rebuttal that was on full display during the debate. To paraphrase: "I may be Canadian, you, Trump, are a New Yorker." I mean, as accusations go, it's hard to deny. Half of Canada isn't covered with the word "Cruz," but, much to the chagrin of the locals, you can't say the same thing about Trump and New York City. New York is, of course, technically in the United States, but Cruz is betting that Republican voters see that situation as a temporary misfortune. But even as the Empire State sits within U.S. borders, the "Duck Dynasty" crowd would like to believe that they (OK, we) don't really count. Maria Bartiromo started things off with, "Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, 'embodies New York values.' Could you explain what you mean by that?" "You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are," Cruz replied. Warm audience laughter, which could mean anything from "Jewish" to "I hear they wear clothes that fit." After Bartiromo pressed further, he caved, saying, "the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media." "Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I'm just saying," he finished, echoing Trump's stump speech line about how "not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba." Echoing Trump's birthplace obsession – even imitating his rhetoric and throwing it in his face – is a pretty smooth move. But Trump has a trump card: 9/11. "When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York," Trump replied. "You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. Thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction. I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it." Trump's got a point. You can have your patriotic kitsch with a bald eagle shedding tears over an American flag planted in the WTC rubble, or you can claim New Yorkers aren't real Americans, but you really can't have both. Your move, Canada. Or Cuba. Wherever evangelicals don't really come from, Trump hears. WATCH the video clip below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/01/CruzBi..." image="http://media.salon.com/2016/01/trump-... tempting to denounce Fox Business Network for focusing so much of Thursday's Republican debate on the silly fight between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz about whose birthplace is worse: Canada and New York City. On the other hand, it's not like the candidates have anything smarter to say about real issues – we're talking about men who think that briefly detaining soldiers trespassing in foreign waters is practically a declaration of war – so okay, let's talk about whose mother brought greater shame upon the family by where she gave birth. Things started off when Fox Business, no doubt aware that ratings are threatened by the fact that Republican debates are coming around more frequently than pizza night in some houses, went ahead and asked Ted Cruz about this stupid, Trump-inspired debate over whether a born citizen is a natural born citizen. Cruz's background as a lawyer revealed itself in his response. No short, pithy responses for him. He practically rolled out a projector and walked the crowd through a lengthy, multi-faceted argument in his own defense: Donald Trump is only saying this because he's desperate. Trump's own mother was a Scottish national. As a lawyer, he is better equipped to interpret law than Trump. And, of course, there was soaring rhetoric about how everyone on stage is an American, but he (posing, looking at the sky, impressed by his own profundity) has the courage to talk about issues that really matter, aka whatever internal polling says is scaring elderly white people these days.

.@tedcruz fired back at @realDonaldTrump over birther claims. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/VHOSRAXT1c

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) January 15, 2016

All just as well, but Cruz's dark genius as a politician is truly revealed in the rebuttal he has created for this attack, a rebuttal that was on full display during the debate. To paraphrase: "I may be Canadian, you, Trump, are a New Yorker." I mean, as accusations go, it's hard to deny. Half of Canada isn't covered with the word "Cruz," but, much to the chagrin of the locals, you can't say the same thing about Trump and New York City. New York is, of course, technically in the United States, but Cruz is betting that Republican voters see that situation as a temporary misfortune. But even as the Empire State sits within U.S. borders, the "Duck Dynasty" crowd would like to believe that they (OK, we) don't really count. Maria Bartiromo started things off with, "Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, 'embodies New York values.' Could you explain what you mean by that?" "You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are," Cruz replied. Warm audience laughter, which could mean anything from "Jewish" to "I hear they wear clothes that fit." After Bartiromo pressed further, he caved, saying, "the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media." "Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I'm just saying," he finished, echoing Trump's stump speech line about how "not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba." Echoing Trump's birthplace obsession – even imitating his rhetoric and throwing it in his face – is a pretty smooth move. But Trump has a trump card: 9/11. "When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York," Trump replied. "You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. Thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction. I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it." Trump's got a point. You can have your patriotic kitsch with a bald eagle shedding tears over an American flag planted in the WTC rubble, or you can claim New Yorkers aren't real Americans, but you really can't have both. Your move, Canada. Or Cuba. Wherever evangelicals don't really come from, Trump hears. WATCH the video clip below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2016/01/CruzBi..." image="http://media.salon.com/2016/01/trump-...]

Continue Reading...

Trump will be everything to every bigot — claims police being “the most mistreated people this country”

It's becoming increasingly clear that GOP strategists told the candidates in the main debate tonight to throw absolutely everything at the wall -- irrespective of its relevance to the question asked or anything remotely topical about the state of America today -- and that they would sort out what did and didn't work in the morning. Chris Christie is talking about "keeping the bad folks out and making sure they don't harm us"; Marco Rubio is talking about slavery and the oppression of women in Muslim countries; Donald Trump is assuring American "that there's something going on, and it's bad." He then added, apropos of absolutely nothing, that "by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country, I'll tell you that -- the most mistreated people." From this shambles of illogical assertions surely some point will emerge come morning -- a narrative capable of glossing over the meandering answers to indirect questions and making it seem as if these candidates came into the debate with points they wanted to make and strategies as to how to do so effectively -- but for the moment, it seems as if they are floating potentially xenophobic arguments in an attempt to see which resonates most profoundly with the most bigoted segments of the Republican base.It's becoming increasingly clear that GOP strategists told the candidates in the main debate tonight to throw absolutely everything at the wall -- irrespective of its relevance to the question asked or anything remotely topical about the state of America today -- and that they would sort out what did and didn't work in the morning. Chris Christie is talking about "keeping the bad folks out and making sure they don't harm us"; Marco Rubio is talking about slavery and the oppression of women in Muslim countries; Donald Trump is assuring American "that there's something going on, and it's bad." He then added, apropos of absolutely nothing, that "by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country, I'll tell you that -- the most mistreated people." From this shambles of illogical assertions surely some point will emerge come morning -- a narrative capable of glossing over the meandering answers to indirect questions and making it seem as if these candidates came into the debate with points they wanted to make and strategies as to how to do so effectively -- but for the moment, it seems as if they are floating potentially xenophobic arguments in an attempt to see which resonates most profoundly with the most bigoted segments of the Republican base.It's becoming increasingly clear that GOP strategists told the candidates in the main debate tonight to throw absolutely everything at the wall -- irrespective of its relevance to the question asked or anything remotely topical about the state of America today -- and that they would sort out what did and didn't work in the morning. Chris Christie is talking about "keeping the bad folks out and making sure they don't harm us"; Marco Rubio is talking about slavery and the oppression of women in Muslim countries; Donald Trump is assuring American "that there's something going on, and it's bad." He then added, apropos of absolutely nothing, that "by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country, I'll tell you that -- the most mistreated people." From this shambles of illogical assertions surely some point will emerge come morning -- a narrative capable of glossing over the meandering answers to indirect questions and making it seem as if these candidates came into the debate with points they wanted to make and strategies as to how to do so effectively -- but for the moment, it seems as if they are floating potentially xenophobic arguments in an attempt to see which resonates most profoundly with the most bigoted segments of the Republican base.It's becoming increasingly clear that GOP strategists told the candidates in the main debate tonight to throw absolutely everything at the wall -- irrespective of its relevance to the question asked or anything remotely topical about the state of America today -- and that they would sort out what did and didn't work in the morning. Chris Christie is talking about "keeping the bad folks out and making sure they don't harm us"; Marco Rubio is talking about slavery and the oppression of women in Muslim countries; Donald Trump is assuring American "that there's something going on, and it's bad." He then added, apropos of absolutely nothing, that "by the way, the police are the most mistreated people in this country, I'll tell you that -- the most mistreated people." From this shambles of illogical assertions surely some point will emerge come morning -- a narrative capable of glossing over the meandering answers to indirect questions and making it seem as if these candidates came into the debate with points they wanted to make and strategies as to how to do so effectively -- but for the moment, it seems as if they are floating potentially xenophobic arguments in an attempt to see which resonates most profoundly with the most bigoted segments of the Republican base.

Continue Reading...

In “a zombie apocalypse, I hope the undead who lost their lives on 9/11 specifically devour Republicans”: Graciously, Patton Oswalt returns to live-tweeting the GOP debate

It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  It's a new year and although America is forced to endure, yet another, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate, we once again have the aid and comfort of Patton Oswalt's live-tweets to help us #survive: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...  

Continue Reading...

There will be blood: Big Oil’s collapse and the birth of a new world order

As 2015 drew to a close, many in the global energy industry were praying that the price of oil would bounce back from the abyss, restoring the petroleum-centric world of the past half-century.  All evidence, however, points to a continuing depression in oil prices in 2016 -- one that may, in fact, stretch into the 2020s and beyond.  Given the centrality of oil (and oil revenues) in the global power equation, this is bound to translate into a profound shakeup in the political order, with petroleum-producing states from Saudi Arabia to Russia losing both prominence and geopolitical clout. To put things in perspective, it was not so long ago -- in June 2014, to be exact -- that Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was selling at $115 per barrel.  Energy analysts then generally assumed that the price of oil would remain well over $100 deep into the future, and might gradually rise to even more stratospheric levels.  Such predictions inspired the giant energy companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in what were then termed “unconventional” reserves: Arctic oil, Canadian tar sands, deep offshore reserves, and dense shale formations. It seemed obvious then that whatever the problems with, and the cost of extracting, such energy reserves, sooner or later handsome profits would be made. It mattered little that the cost of exploiting such reserves might reach $50 or more a barrel. As of this moment, however, Brent crude is selling at $33 per barrel, one-third of its price 18 months ago and way below the break-even price for most unconventional “tough oil” endeavors. Worse yet, in one scenario recently offered by the International Energy Agency (IEA), prices might not again reach the $50 to $60 range until the 2020s, or make it back to $85 until 2040. Think of this as the energy equivalent of a monster earthquake -- a pricequake -- that will doom not just many “tough oil” projects now underway but some of the over-extended companies (and governments) that own them. The current rout in oil prices has obvious implications for the giant oil firms and all the ancillary businesses -- equipment suppliers, drill-rig operators, shipping companies, caterers, and so on -- that depend on them for their existence. It also threatens a profound shift in the geopolitical fortunes of the major energy-producing countries. Many of them, including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, are already experiencing economic and political turmoil as a result. (Think of this, for instance, as a boon for the terrorist group Boko Haram as Nigeria shudders under the weight of those falling prices.) The longer such price levels persist, the more devastating the consequences are likely to be. A Perfect Storm Generally speaking, oil prices go up when the global economy is robust, world demand is rising, suppliers are pumping at maximum levels, and little stored or surplus capacity is on hand.  They tend to fall when, as now, the global economy is stagnant or slipping, energy demand is tepid, key suppliers fail to rein in production in consonance with falling demand, surplus oil builds up, and future supplies appear assured. During the go-go years of the housing boom, in the early part of this century, the world economy was thriving, demand was indeed soaring, and many analysts were predicting an imminent “peak” in world production followed by significant scarcities.  Not surprisingly, Brent prices rose to stratospheric levels, reaching a record $143 per barrel in July 2008.  With the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 15th of that year and the ensuing global economic meltdown, demand for oil evaporated, driving prices down to $34 that December. With factories idle and millions unemployed, most analysts assumed that prices would remain low for some time to come.  So imagine the surprise in the oil business when, in October 2009, Brent crude rose to $77 per barrel.  Barely more than two years later, in February 2011, it again crossed the $100 threshold, where it generally remained until June 2014. Several factors account for this price recovery, none more important than what was happening in China, where the authorities decided to stimulate the economy by investing heavily in infrastructure, especially roads, bridges, and highways.  Add in soaring automobile ownership among that country’s urban middle class and the result was a sharp increase in energy demand.  According to oil giant BP, between 2008 and 2013, petroleum consumption in China leaped 35%, from 8.0 million to 10.8 million barrels per day.  And China was just leading the way.  Rapidly developing countries like Brazil and India followed suit in a period when output at many existing, conventional oil fields had begun to decline; hence, that rush into those “unconventional” reserves. This is more or less where things stood in early 2014, when the price pendulum suddenly began swinging in the other direction, as production from unconventional fields in the U.S. and Canada began to make its presence felt in a big way.  Domestic U.S. crude production, which had dropped from 7.5 million barrels per day in January 1990 to a mere 5.5 million barrels in January 2010, suddenly headed upwards, reaching a stunning 9.6 million barrels in July 2015.  Virtually all the added oil came from newly exploited shale formations in North Dakota and Texas.  Canada experienced a similar sharp uptick in production, as heavy investment in tar sands began to pay off.  According to BP, Canadian output jumped from 3.2 million barrels per day in 2008 to 4.3 million barrels in 2014.  And don’t forget that production was also ramping up in, among other places, deep-offshore fields in the Atlantic Ocean off both Brazil and West Africa, which were just then coming on line.  At that very moment, to the surprise of many, war-torn Iraq succeeded in lifting its output by nearly one million barrels per day. Add it all up and the numbers were staggering, but demand was no longer keeping pace.  The Chinese stimulus package had largely petered out and international demand for that country’s manufactured goods was slowing, thanks to tepid or nonexistent economic growth in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.  From an eye-popping annual rate of 10% over the previous 30 years, China's growth rate fell into the single digits.  Though China’s oil demand is expected to keep rising, it is not projected to grow at anything like the pace of recent years. At the same time, increased fuel efficiency in the United States, the world’s leading oil consumer, began to have an effect on the global energy picture.  At the height of the country’s financial crisis, when the Obama administration bailed out both General Motors and Chrysler, the president forced the major car manufacturers to agree to a tough set of fuel-efficiency standards now noticeably reducing America’s demand for petroleum.  Under a plan announced by the White House in 2012, the average fuel efficiency of U.S.-manufactured cars and light vehicles will rise to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, reducing expected U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels between now and then. In mid-2014, these and other factors came together to produce a perfect storm of price suppression.  At that time, many analysts believed that the Saudis and their allies in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would, as in the past, respond by reining in production to bolster prices.  However, on November 27, 2014 -- Thanksgiving Day -- OPEC confounded those expectations, voting to maintain the output quotas of its member states.  The next day, the price of crude plunged by $4 and the rest is history. A Dismal Prospect In early 2015, many oil company executives were expressing the hope that these fundamentals would soon change, pushing prices back up again.  But recent developments have demolished such expectations. Aside from the continuing economic slowdown in China and the surge of output in North America, the most significant factor in the unpromising oil outlook, which now extends bleakly into 2016 and beyond, is the steadfast Saudi resistance to any proposals to curtail their production or OPEC’s.  On December 4th, for instance, OPEC members voted yet again to keep quotas at their current levels and, in the process, drove prices down another 5%.  If anything, the Saudis have actually increased their output. Many reasons have been given for the Saudis’ resistance to production cutbacks, including a desire to punish Iran and Russia for their support of the Assad regime in Syria.  In the view of many industry analysts, the Saudis see themselves as better positioned than their rivals for weathering a long-term price decline because of their lower costs of production and their large cushion of foreign reserves.  The most likely explanation, though, and the one advanced by the Saudis themselves is that they are seeking to maintain a price environment in which U.S. shale producers and other tough-oil operators will be driven out of the market.  “There is no doubt about it, the price fall of the last several months has deterred investors away from expensive oil including U.S. shale, deep offshore, and heavy oils,” a top Saudi official told the Financial Times last spring. Despite the Saudis’ best efforts, the larger U.S. producers have, for the most part, adjusted to the low-price environment, cutting costs and shedding unprofitable operations, even as many smaller firms have filed for bankruptcy. As a result, U.S. crude production, at about 9.2 million barrels per day, is actually slightly higher than it was a year ago. In other words, even at $33 a barrel, production continues to outpace global demand and there seems little likelihood of prices rising soon, especially since, among other things, both Iraq and Iran continue to increase their output.  With the Islamic State slowly losing ground in Iraq and most major oil fields still in government hands, that country’s production is expected to continue its stellar growth.  In fact, some analysts project that its output could triple during the coming decade from the present three million barrels per day level to as much as nine million barrels. For years, Iranian production has been hobbled by sanctions imposed by Washington and the European Union (E.U.), impeding both export transactions and the acquisition of advanced Western drilling technology.  Now, thanks to its nuclear deal with Washington, those sanctions are being lifted, allowing it both to reenter the oil market and import needed technology.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iranian output could rise by as much as 600,000 barrels per day in 2016 and by more in the years to follow. Only three developments could conceivably alter the present low-price environment for oil: a Middle Eastern war that took out one or more of the major energy suppliers; a Saudi decision to constrain production in order to boost prices; or an unexpected global surge in demand. The prospect of a new war between, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two powers at each other’s throats at this very moment -- can never be ruled out, though neither side is believed to have the capacity or inclination to undertake such a risky move. A Saudi decision to constrain production is somewhat more likely sooner or later, given the precipitous decline in government revenues. However, the Saudis have repeatedly affirmed their determination to avoid such a move, as it would largely benefit the very producers -- namely shale operators in the U.S. -- they seek to eliminate. The likelihood of a sudden spike in demand appears unlikely indeed.  Not only is economic activity still slowing in China and many other parts of the world, but there’s an extra wrinkle that should worry the Saudis at least as much as all that shale oil coming out of North America: oil itself is beginning to lose some of its appeal. While newly affluent consumers in China and India continue to buy oil-powered automobiles -- albeit not at the breakneck pace once predicted -- a growing number of consumers in the older industrial nations are exhibiting a preference for hybrid and all-electric cars, or for alternative means of transportation.  Moreover, with concern over climate change growing globally, increasing numbers of young urban dwellers are choosing to subsist without cars altogether, relying instead on bikes and public transit.  In addition, the use of renewable energy sources -- sun, wind, and water power -- is on the rise and will only grow more rapidly in this century. These trends have prompted some analysts to predict that global oil demand will soon peak and then be followed by a period of declining consumption.  Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the energy and sustainability program at the University of California, Davis, suggests that growing urbanization combined with technological breakthroughs in renewables will dramatically reduce future demand for oil.  “Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking smarter designs for transport systems as well as penalties and restrictions on car ownership. Already in the West, trendsetting millennials are urbanizing, eliminating the need for commuting and interest in individual car ownership,” she wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year. The Changing World Power Equation Many countries that get a significant share of their funds from oil and natural gas exports and that gained enormous influence as petroleum exporters are already experiencing a significant erosion in prominence.  Their leaders, once bolstered by high oil revenues, which meant money to spread around and buy popularity domestically, are falling into disfavor. Nigeria’s government, for example, traditionally obtains 75% of its revenues from such sales; Russia’s, 50%; and Venezuela’s, 40%.  With oil now at a third of the price of 18 months ago, state revenues in all three have plummeted, putting a crimp in their ability to undertake ambitious domestic and foreign initiatives. In Nigeria, diminished government spending combined with rampant corruption discredited the government of President Goodluck Jonathan and helped fuel a vicious insurgency by Boko Haram, prompting Nigerian voters to abandon him in the most recent election and install a former military ruler, Muhammadu Buhari, in his place.  Since taking office, Buhari has pledged to crack down on corruption, crush Boko Haram, and -- in a telling sign of the times -- diversify the economy, lessening its reliance on oil. Venezuela has experienced a similar political shock thanks to depressed oil prices.  When prices were high, President Hugo Chávez took revenues from the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., and used them to build housing and provide other benefits for the country’s poor and working classes, winning vast popular support for his United Socialist Party.  He also sought regional support by offering oil subsidies to friendly countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.  After he died in March 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolas Maduro, sought to perpetuate this strategy, but oil didn’t cooperate and, not surprisingly, public support for him and for Chávez’s party began to collapse.  On December 6th, the center-right opposition swept to electoral victory, taking a majority of the seats in the National Assembly.  It now seeks to dismantle Chávez’s “Bolivarian Revolution,” though Maduro's supporters have pledged firm resistance to any such moves. The situation in Russia remains somewhat more fluid.  President Vladimir Putin continues to enjoy widespread popular support and, from Ukraine to Syria, he has indeed been moving ambitiously on the international front.  Still, falling oil prices combined with economic sanctions imposed by the E.U. and the U.S. have begun to cause some expressions of dissatisfaction, including a recent protest by long-distance truckers over increased highway tolls. Russia’s economy is expected to contract in a significant way in 2016, undermining the living standards of ordinary Russians and possibly sparking further anti-government protests.  In fact, some analysts believe that Putin took the risky step of intervening in the Syrian conflict partly to deflect public attention from deteriorating economic conditions at home.  He may also have done so to create a situation in which Russian help in achieving a negotiated resolution to the bitter, increasingly internationalized Syrian civil war could be traded for the lifting of sanctions over Ukraine.  If so, this is a very dangerous game, and no one -- least of all Putin -- can be certain of the outcome. Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil exporter, has been similarly buffeted, but appears -- for the time being, anyway -- to be in a somewhat better position to weather the shock.  When oil prices were high, the Saudis socked away a massive trove of foreign reserves, estimated at three-quarters of a trillion dollars.  Now that prices have fallen, they are drawing on those reserves to sustain generous social spending meant to stave off unrest in the kingdom and to finance their ambitious intervention in Yemen’s civil war, which is already beginning to look like a Saudi Vietnam.  Still, those reserves have fallen by some $90 billion since last year and the government is already announcing cutbacks in public spending, leading some observers to question how long the royal family can continue to buy off the discontent of the country’s growing populace.  Even if the Saudis were to reverse course and limit the kingdom’s oil production to drive the price of oil back up, it’s unlikely that their oil income would rise high enough to sustain all of their present lavish spending priorities. Other major oil-producing countries also face the prospect of political turmoil, including Algeria and Angola.  The leaders of both countries had achieved the usual deceptive degree of stability in energy producing countries through the usual oil-financed government largesse.  That is now coming to an end, which means that both countries could face internal challenges. And keep in mind that the tremors from the oil pricequake have undoubtedly yet to reach their full magnitude.  Prices will, of course, rise someday.  That’s inevitable, given the way investors are pulling the plug on energy projects globally.  Still, on a planet heading for a green energy revolution, there’s no assurance that they will ever reach the $100-plus levels that were once taken for granted.  Whatever happens to oil and the countries that produce it, the global political order that once rested on oil’s soaring price is doomed.  While this may mean hardship for some, especially the citizens of export-dependent states like Russia and Venezuela, it could help smooth the transition to a world powered by renewable forms of energy.As 2015 drew to a close, many in the global energy industry were praying that the price of oil would bounce back from the abyss, restoring the petroleum-centric world of the past half-century.  All evidence, however, points to a continuing depression in oil prices in 2016 -- one that may, in fact, stretch into the 2020s and beyond.  Given the centrality of oil (and oil revenues) in the global power equation, this is bound to translate into a profound shakeup in the political order, with petroleum-producing states from Saudi Arabia to Russia losing both prominence and geopolitical clout. To put things in perspective, it was not so long ago -- in June 2014, to be exact -- that Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was selling at $115 per barrel.  Energy analysts then generally assumed that the price of oil would remain well over $100 deep into the future, and might gradually rise to even more stratospheric levels.  Such predictions inspired the giant energy companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in what were then termed “unconventional” reserves: Arctic oil, Canadian tar sands, deep offshore reserves, and dense shale formations. It seemed obvious then that whatever the problems with, and the cost of extracting, such energy reserves, sooner or later handsome profits would be made. It mattered little that the cost of exploiting such reserves might reach $50 or more a barrel. As of this moment, however, Brent crude is selling at $33 per barrel, one-third of its price 18 months ago and way below the break-even price for most unconventional “tough oil” endeavors. Worse yet, in one scenario recently offered by the International Energy Agency (IEA), prices might not again reach the $50 to $60 range until the 2020s, or make it back to $85 until 2040. Think of this as the energy equivalent of a monster earthquake -- a pricequake -- that will doom not just many “tough oil” projects now underway but some of the over-extended companies (and governments) that own them. The current rout in oil prices has obvious implications for the giant oil firms and all the ancillary businesses -- equipment suppliers, drill-rig operators, shipping companies, caterers, and so on -- that depend on them for their existence. It also threatens a profound shift in the geopolitical fortunes of the major energy-producing countries. Many of them, including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, are already experiencing economic and political turmoil as a result. (Think of this, for instance, as a boon for the terrorist group Boko Haram as Nigeria shudders under the weight of those falling prices.) The longer such price levels persist, the more devastating the consequences are likely to be. A Perfect Storm Generally speaking, oil prices go up when the global economy is robust, world demand is rising, suppliers are pumping at maximum levels, and little stored or surplus capacity is on hand.  They tend to fall when, as now, the global economy is stagnant or slipping, energy demand is tepid, key suppliers fail to rein in production in consonance with falling demand, surplus oil builds up, and future supplies appear assured. During the go-go years of the housing boom, in the early part of this century, the world economy was thriving, demand was indeed soaring, and many analysts were predicting an imminent “peak” in world production followed by significant scarcities.  Not surprisingly, Brent prices rose to stratospheric levels, reaching a record $143 per barrel in July 2008.  With the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 15th of that year and the ensuing global economic meltdown, demand for oil evaporated, driving prices down to $34 that December. With factories idle and millions unemployed, most analysts assumed that prices would remain low for some time to come.  So imagine the surprise in the oil business when, in October 2009, Brent crude rose to $77 per barrel.  Barely more than two years later, in February 2011, it again crossed the $100 threshold, where it generally remained until June 2014. Several factors account for this price recovery, none more important than what was happening in China, where the authorities decided to stimulate the economy by investing heavily in infrastructure, especially roads, bridges, and highways.  Add in soaring automobile ownership among that country’s urban middle class and the result was a sharp increase in energy demand.  According to oil giant BP, between 2008 and 2013, petroleum consumption in China leaped 35%, from 8.0 million to 10.8 million barrels per day.  And China was just leading the way.  Rapidly developing countries like Brazil and India followed suit in a period when output at many existing, conventional oil fields had begun to decline; hence, that rush into those “unconventional” reserves. This is more or less where things stood in early 2014, when the price pendulum suddenly began swinging in the other direction, as production from unconventional fields in the U.S. and Canada began to make its presence felt in a big way.  Domestic U.S. crude production, which had dropped from 7.5 million barrels per day in January 1990 to a mere 5.5 million barrels in January 2010, suddenly headed upwards, reaching a stunning 9.6 million barrels in July 2015.  Virtually all the added oil came from newly exploited shale formations in North Dakota and Texas.  Canada experienced a similar sharp uptick in production, as heavy investment in tar sands began to pay off.  According to BP, Canadian output jumped from 3.2 million barrels per day in 2008 to 4.3 million barrels in 2014.  And don’t forget that production was also ramping up in, among other places, deep-offshore fields in the Atlantic Ocean off both Brazil and West Africa, which were just then coming on line.  At that very moment, to the surprise of many, war-torn Iraq succeeded in lifting its output by nearly one million barrels per day. Add it all up and the numbers were staggering, but demand was no longer keeping pace.  The Chinese stimulus package had largely petered out and international demand for that country’s manufactured goods was slowing, thanks to tepid or nonexistent economic growth in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.  From an eye-popping annual rate of 10% over the previous 30 years, China's growth rate fell into the single digits.  Though China’s oil demand is expected to keep rising, it is not projected to grow at anything like the pace of recent years. At the same time, increased fuel efficiency in the United States, the world’s leading oil consumer, began to have an effect on the global energy picture.  At the height of the country’s financial crisis, when the Obama administration bailed out both General Motors and Chrysler, the president forced the major car manufacturers to agree to a tough set of fuel-efficiency standards now noticeably reducing America’s demand for petroleum.  Under a plan announced by the White House in 2012, the average fuel efficiency of U.S.-manufactured cars and light vehicles will rise to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, reducing expected U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels between now and then. In mid-2014, these and other factors came together to produce a perfect storm of price suppression.  At that time, many analysts believed that the Saudis and their allies in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would, as in the past, respond by reining in production to bolster prices.  However, on November 27, 2014 -- Thanksgiving Day -- OPEC confounded those expectations, voting to maintain the output quotas of its member states.  The next day, the price of crude plunged by $4 and the rest is history. A Dismal Prospect In early 2015, many oil company executives were expressing the hope that these fundamentals would soon change, pushing prices back up again.  But recent developments have demolished such expectations. Aside from the continuing economic slowdown in China and the surge of output in North America, the most significant factor in the unpromising oil outlook, which now extends bleakly into 2016 and beyond, is the steadfast Saudi resistance to any proposals to curtail their production or OPEC’s.  On December 4th, for instance, OPEC members voted yet again to keep quotas at their current levels and, in the process, drove prices down another 5%.  If anything, the Saudis have actually increased their output. Many reasons have been given for the Saudis’ resistance to production cutbacks, including a desire to punish Iran and Russia for their support of the Assad regime in Syria.  In the view of many industry analysts, the Saudis see themselves as better positioned than their rivals for weathering a long-term price decline because of their lower costs of production and their large cushion of foreign reserves.  The most likely explanation, though, and the one advanced by the Saudis themselves is that they are seeking to maintain a price environment in which U.S. shale producers and other tough-oil operators will be driven out of the market.  “There is no doubt about it, the price fall of the last several months has deterred investors away from expensive oil including U.S. shale, deep offshore, and heavy oils,” a top Saudi official told the Financial Times last spring. Despite the Saudis’ best efforts, the larger U.S. producers have, for the most part, adjusted to the low-price environment, cutting costs and shedding unprofitable operations, even as many smaller firms have filed for bankruptcy. As a result, U.S. crude production, at about 9.2 million barrels per day, is actually slightly higher than it was a year ago. In other words, even at $33 a barrel, production continues to outpace global demand and there seems little likelihood of prices rising soon, especially since, among other things, both Iraq and Iran continue to increase their output.  With the Islamic State slowly losing ground in Iraq and most major oil fields still in government hands, that country’s production is expected to continue its stellar growth.  In fact, some analysts project that its output could triple during the coming decade from the present three million barrels per day level to as much as nine million barrels. For years, Iranian production has been hobbled by sanctions imposed by Washington and the European Union (E.U.), impeding both export transactions and the acquisition of advanced Western drilling technology.  Now, thanks to its nuclear deal with Washington, those sanctions are being lifted, allowing it both to reenter the oil market and import needed technology.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iranian output could rise by as much as 600,000 barrels per day in 2016 and by more in the years to follow. Only three developments could conceivably alter the present low-price environment for oil: a Middle Eastern war that took out one or more of the major energy suppliers; a Saudi decision to constrain production in order to boost prices; or an unexpected global surge in demand. The prospect of a new war between, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two powers at each other’s throats at this very moment -- can never be ruled out, though neither side is believed to have the capacity or inclination to undertake such a risky move. A Saudi decision to constrain production is somewhat more likely sooner or later, given the precipitous decline in government revenues. However, the Saudis have repeatedly affirmed their determination to avoid such a move, as it would largely benefit the very producers -- namely shale operators in the U.S. -- they seek to eliminate. The likelihood of a sudden spike in demand appears unlikely indeed.  Not only is economic activity still slowing in China and many other parts of the world, but there’s an extra wrinkle that should worry the Saudis at least as much as all that shale oil coming out of North America: oil itself is beginning to lose some of its appeal. While newly affluent consumers in China and India continue to buy oil-powered automobiles -- albeit not at the breakneck pace once predicted -- a growing number of consumers in the older industrial nations are exhibiting a preference for hybrid and all-electric cars, or for alternative means of transportation.  Moreover, with concern over climate change growing globally, increasing numbers of young urban dwellers are choosing to subsist without cars altogether, relying instead on bikes and public transit.  In addition, the use of renewable energy sources -- sun, wind, and water power -- is on the rise and will only grow more rapidly in this century. These trends have prompted some analysts to predict that global oil demand will soon peak and then be followed by a period of declining consumption.  Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the energy and sustainability program at the University of California, Davis, suggests that growing urbanization combined with technological breakthroughs in renewables will dramatically reduce future demand for oil.  “Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking smarter designs for transport systems as well as penalties and restrictions on car ownership. Already in the West, trendsetting millennials are urbanizing, eliminating the need for commuting and interest in individual car ownership,” she wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year. The Changing World Power Equation Many countries that get a significant share of their funds from oil and natural gas exports and that gained enormous influence as petroleum exporters are already experiencing a significant erosion in prominence.  Their leaders, once bolstered by high oil revenues, which meant money to spread around and buy popularity domestically, are falling into disfavor. Nigeria’s government, for example, traditionally obtains 75% of its revenues from such sales; Russia’s, 50%; and Venezuela’s, 40%.  With oil now at a third of the price of 18 months ago, state revenues in all three have plummeted, putting a crimp in their ability to undertake ambitious domestic and foreign initiatives. In Nigeria, diminished government spending combined with rampant corruption discredited the government of President Goodluck Jonathan and helped fuel a vicious insurgency by Boko Haram, prompting Nigerian voters to abandon him in the most recent election and install a former military ruler, Muhammadu Buhari, in his place.  Since taking office, Buhari has pledged to crack down on corruption, crush Boko Haram, and -- in a telling sign of the times -- diversify the economy, lessening its reliance on oil. Venezuela has experienced a similar political shock thanks to depressed oil prices.  When prices were high, President Hugo Chávez took revenues from the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., and used them to build housing and provide other benefits for the country’s poor and working classes, winning vast popular support for his United Socialist Party.  He also sought regional support by offering oil subsidies to friendly countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.  After he died in March 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolas Maduro, sought to perpetuate this strategy, but oil didn’t cooperate and, not surprisingly, public support for him and for Chávez’s party began to collapse.  On December 6th, the center-right opposition swept to electoral victory, taking a majority of the seats in the National Assembly.  It now seeks to dismantle Chávez’s “Bolivarian Revolution,” though Maduro's supporters have pledged firm resistance to any such moves. The situation in Russia remains somewhat more fluid.  President Vladimir Putin continues to enjoy widespread popular support and, from Ukraine to Syria, he has indeed been moving ambitiously on the international front.  Still, falling oil prices combined with economic sanctions imposed by the E.U. and the U.S. have begun to cause some expressions of dissatisfaction, including a recent protest by long-distance truckers over increased highway tolls. Russia’s economy is expected to contract in a significant way in 2016, undermining the living standards of ordinary Russians and possibly sparking further anti-government protests.  In fact, some analysts believe that Putin took the risky step of intervening in the Syrian conflict partly to deflect public attention from deteriorating economic conditions at home.  He may also have done so to create a situation in which Russian help in achieving a negotiated resolution to the bitter, increasingly internationalized Syrian civil war could be traded for the lifting of sanctions over Ukraine.  If so, this is a very dangerous game, and no one -- least of all Putin -- can be certain of the outcome. Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil exporter, has been similarly buffeted, but appears -- for the time being, anyway -- to be in a somewhat better position to weather the shock.  When oil prices were high, the Saudis socked away a massive trove of foreign reserves, estimated at three-quarters of a trillion dollars.  Now that prices have fallen, they are drawing on those reserves to sustain generous social spending meant to stave off unrest in the kingdom and to finance their ambitious intervention in Yemen’s civil war, which is already beginning to look like a Saudi Vietnam.  Still, those reserves have fallen by some $90 billion since last year and the government is already announcing cutbacks in public spending, leading some observers to question how long the royal family can continue to buy off the discontent of the country’s growing populace.  Even if the Saudis were to reverse course and limit the kingdom’s oil production to drive the price of oil back up, it’s unlikely that their oil income would rise high enough to sustain all of their present lavish spending priorities. Other major oil-producing countries also face the prospect of political turmoil, including Algeria and Angola.  The leaders of both countries had achieved the usual deceptive degree of stability in energy producing countries through the usual oil-financed government largesse.  That is now coming to an end, which means that both countries could face internal challenges. And keep in mind that the tremors from the oil pricequake have undoubtedly yet to reach their full magnitude.  Prices will, of course, rise someday.  That’s inevitable, given the way investors are pulling the plug on energy projects globally.  Still, on a planet heading for a green energy revolution, there’s no assurance that they will ever reach the $100-plus levels that were once taken for granted.  Whatever happens to oil and the countries that produce it, the global political order that once rested on oil’s soaring price is doomed.  While this may mean hardship for some, especially the citizens of export-dependent states like Russia and Venezuela, it could help smooth the transition to a world powered by renewable forms of energy.

Continue Reading...

Bernie has Hillary sweating: Why the Democratic race is suddenly wide open

With just three weeks to go before the Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders is now in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, he trails her by just 3 points in Iowa, well within the margin of error. In other words, it's a tie. A dead heat. This is really, really, really big news. Sanders is already beating Clinton in New Hampshire, and if he can pull-off a two-state sweep of the early primaries, that would completely change the dynamic of the race. And I mean completely. At this point, national polls don't really matter; what matters is momentum, and if Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would suck up pretty much all of the momentum. Now, considering the fact that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, you'd think the establishment Democrats would be thrilled with these developments. You'd think the people who talk so much about "electability" and how important it is, would be overjoyed that Bernie Sanders, a popular and electable candidate, is moving toward the Democratic nomination. Apparently not. Instead of celebrating the rise of a new star, establishment Democrats are freaking out about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. Case in point: former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who on MSNBC agreed with Joe Scarborough that establishment Dems could recruit John Kerry or Joe Biden to run if Bernie sweeps both early primary states. Pretty weird, right? Here Sanders is inspiring millions of young people to get involved in politics, and establishment Democrats think it might be a good idea to draft two guys who've already lost presidential races. Go figure. But here's the thing: Establishment Democrats aren't stupid — they should be scared of Bernie Sanders. That's because he represents a direct threat to the centrists who have ruled the Democratic Party for the past few decades. Although he's not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades. A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved "too far to the left" during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were "to expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals." That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive values of the New Deal and FDR. Under From's leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons. Instead of talking about ways to make the US a more just and equal society, Democrats now talked about things like welfare reform, so-called free trade and so-called school choice, which were really just corporate plans to privatize the commons. The final victory in the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC's ideas were the basis for most of his policies. Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party. And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment, especially Hillary Clinton. Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders. If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show. The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold out to the corporatists. They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s. They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, they're siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. As I said earlier, establishment Democrats should be scared. Bernie's campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing.

Continue Reading...

Obama Derangement Syndrome is terminal: The GOP is going to make the next year a living hell

Continue Reading...