Hopefully someday soon we can start laughing with the poor guy, rather than at him.  With good management he could parlay his high profile dumping by the Palin family into some great entertainment, which would be just as well since according to GQ the guy’s notoriety is preventing him from getting a job in beautiful Wasilia.  In the meantime, the western world’s curiosity about him is peaking probably because of its direct parallel to the rise of Sarah Palin — a long-bomb which nearly catapulted a folksy uber-religious small town mayor into direct control over the world’s largest military arsenal.

He possesses one thing that Sarah Palin does not:  within his naivety, a certain nobility prevails.  And with it, a certain dignity that still gives him the opportunity to feign afterglow on CNN with a notorious, self-confessed media whore.  We may come to laugh right along with Levi long before we stop laughing at Sarah Palin.  At least Levi is well aware of what he is, and what he isn’t.

According to Valleywag it seems that Jimmy Wales, creator of Wikipedia, has entangled himself where so many have been entangled before: in the gaze of the just slightly right-of-Hitler Rachel Marsden. While few of us were paying attention, Marsden happens to have vaulted her career from falsely accusing SFU’s swim coach of harassment after allegedly stalking him for months to a brief but uninspiring career at Fox News.

How the man smart enough to give us the crowd-sourced encyclopedia of everything was dumb enough to become caught in this web is beyond me.

Note to Jimmy: dude, you’re the starchild of Silicon Valley’s tech culture — lots of smart, good-looking women will probably sleep with you, I’m sure of it. There’s no need to dip into the looney bin.

Wherever Miss Marsden goes, trouble is sure to follow. When she arrived at my alma mater, Simon Fraser University, it didn’t take long for her to enmesh herself in the campus’ greatest controversy in its history. After reportedly stalking the swim team’s coach, Liam Donnelly, for months she accused him of sexual harassment and molestation, also claiming that they’d had a relationship for months. At the same time, Donnelly had been confiding to friends that her aggressive and persistent advances toward him were concerning, and that they jeopardized his position with the school.

In the end, the controversy culminated in the embarrassment of the University, the resignation of the University’s President, a lengthy RCMP investigation, a formal inquiry, and cash settlements for both parties — a blight on the institution.

We newly shamed SFU alumni thought that she would go away quietly, but boy were we wrong. Here’s a chronology of the good times as they keep on rolling:

• 1997: Rachel accuses Liam Donnelly of rape, harassment, and whatever else she can think of. Heads roll. Student body embarrassed. But apparently this started in 1993, when she was a teenager and he demoted her from the neighbourhood swim team.
• 1999: SFU threatens to evict Rachel Marsden from the campus residences for continuing to stalk Donnelly, for harassing and stalking SFU’s Harassment policy co-ordinator Patricia O’Hagan (leading O’Hagan to quit, change her number, and move) and also SFU Criminology Professor Neil Boyd, who takes his case to the RCMP. Clearly a woman with no sense of her own irony.
• 1999: Rachel Marsden’s father, then 56 years old, is suspended for inappropriate conduct toward his female students, reportedly having taken a student on dates, and showing up at the student’s workplace to give her gifts.
• 2000: Rachel Marsden’s father, Claude Arthur Marsden, is found guilty of professional misconduct. “Mr. Marsden engaged in a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old female student.”
• 2003: Marsden becomes a “Babe for Bush”.
• 2004: Marsden is fired by BC conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, where she was working under the alias “Elle Henderson”, after it is revealed she’s facing harassment charges in a BC court.
• 2004: Marsden is convicted of stalking and harassing Michael Morgan, a Vancouver radio host with whom she worked (or tried to) at radio station CFUN, according to some reports from 2002-2004.
• 2005: Marsden remakes herself as a conservative pundit with a blog, columns in the Toronto Star, and fleeting appearances on the O’Reilly Factor, plying her trade as a sort of bargain basement Hyper-Coulter.
• 2007: Marsden is escorted from the building by her new employer, Fox News, after the infamous Salon piece and after some rumours (propagated by her, it seems) that she had begun harassing the host of “Red-Eye”, Greg Gutfeld.
• 2007: Marsden accuses Tony Backhurst, an Ontario police officer and unsuccessful Tory MP candidate of “leaking security secrets to her” after he files a complaint of harassment against her and the RCMP launches an investigation.
• 2008: Marsden gets dumped by Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia, so she leaks some of their email and instant messaging conversations to Valleywag, and sells some of his stuff on eBay (I’ve preserved the auctions in PDF here and here).

The real irony is that Jimmy, apparently, had read the warning label on this explosive device but chose to meddle with it anyway — we men are so stupid. According to his own reports he had altered the Wikipedia entry for her after her repeated requests that the god of Wiki gods do so — obviously, with her notorious past following her every move, spin control was and remains a major priority.

At present, Marsden appears to be living in New York and promoting her new web site Grand Central Political, evidently a job board for conservative spin doctors and other politicos. Vexingly she continues to appear on CNN to comment on everything from the War in Afghanistan to NAFTA. But it’s quite astonishing that this tarnish hasn’t prevented her from continuing to get air time. What exactly does one have to do these days to discredit oneself in politics?

If Marsden is any precedent then clearly, other notorious right-wing political figures like Tom Delay, Michael Brown, and Linda Tripp are sitting on a goldmine of endless punditry possibility — they just need the right sort of publicist. Huzzah! According to Marsden’s personal web site, she is up for the task: “If you are looking for Public Relations or Communications/Media services, click here to contact Rachel“. Far too late for Slobodan Milosevic, I am afraid.

Obviously I’ll be updating and referencing this page for years to come. Keep up the good work, Rachel!

“You want to make sure people understand that when they see civilian suffering there, it’s in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States.”

Isaacson later claimed that he was buckling under pressure from CNN’s corporate interests, which exclaimed that the news was “too negative”. Failing to understand his own irony, he also later stated that he didn’t want CNN to be used “as a propaganda platform.” In actual context, the number of deaths occurring on September 11th pales by comparison to those civilians who’ve paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Iraq (which now accounts for as many as 70,000 civilian deaths).

Much more disturbing, the mainstream US Media bought and then massively resold the administration’s link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda without any hard evidence and without any further in-depth investigation. While even reporters, editors, and producers themselves were disinclined to believe the US Administration’s line they reported it breathlessly regardless of their concerns. Bushists and their army then descended upon the media to repeat the phrase “but we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” which was an obvious manipulation of the public’s fear of a bigger, badder 9/11 — they were given a virtually infinite quantity of air time as a podium to sell the war, and very little in the way of counterpoint. In the history of mankind, there has rarely been such an abject failure of the Fourth Estate.

But today I’m not writing to indict the Bushists. Of far greater concern to me are the millions of born-again Hawks who channeled the anger, pain, and shock from the 9/11 attack into a seething, raging vengeance. Insodoing they allowed themselves to be manipulated by the dubious aims of an administration bent on war and naively seeking U.S. dominance of the Middle East (as though that is even a feasible goal).

Many of these faux-hawks (I’m attempting to hijack the phrase for comedic effect here) are now, with the benefit of hindsight, claiming that they were “lied to” and “manipulated”, as though that warrants immediate exoneration. This is the problem.

Why was I able to form an opinion, amid the froth of propaganda following 9/11 and leading up to the wars, that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, that there was likely no nuclear program in Iraq, and that there was no real justifiable reason to invade Iraq? Am I smarter than everyone else? Surely not.

The answer is simple. While I watched CNN and occasionally Faux News, I also read other articles, such as this one from Knight-Ridder. I’d also read a few books on Middle-Eastern and specifically Iraqi recent history to understand the longer-term context, and I did a hell of a lot of Googling. I read newspapers from around the world, I read and watched opposing viewpoints, and I discussed the issue with friends. I read the back pages of the NY Times and Washington Post, to where most of the cautionary reporting was relegated. In essence, I sought out perspective, and through no matter of luck I found it, and it turns out to have been the correct one.

This is the job of every citizen of a democracy — I would hazard to say every citizen of the world. I cannot forgive those who merely lapped up that which was spoon-fed to them, who were entirely governed by their emotions, and who abandoned their responsibility as citizens and voters by failing to protest — loudly — the march to war. Through inaction, and this is at times the worst crime in a civilized society, they permitted a culture which has survived for thousands of years in the birthplace of humanity to endure its most trying disparagement.

A hockey coach of mine once said that the hardest-working player on the ice should always the guy who just screwed up. That rule also applies here. If you succumbed to the rhetoric of the Bush sycophants and joined the march (to send other people) to war only to realize your mistake later, you owe more to your fellow man than to simply claim you were lied to. You need to, at last, take action to stop the injustice in which you were complicit.

Paint a sign, write a blog post, march in a parade, or simply raise the quality of your discourse among friend. Do anything to combat this blunder and make up to your fellow patriots and world citizens alike. No President or Congress can instigate a war without the support of the population. So whose fault is the current Iraqi debacle?

Well, maybe it’s yours.

-Ian.

The most spectacular such take is The New Republic’s Stephen Glass [1], which case blew up in 1998. As a 25-Year-Old rising star in the annals of journalism, he went from fabricating the occasional quote for far-flung articles to making up entire pieces using fictitious people, organizations, and events. He wrote stories to suit his ambition to be recognized as an emerging talent with an ability to uncover the wild, the eccentric, the incredible.

“Everything around him turned out to be incredibly vivid or zany or in some other way memorable,” said Leon Wieseltier, a co-worker at The New Republic, “and at the meetings, we used to wait for Steve’s turn, so that he could report on his next caper. We got really suckered.”

If it’s too good to be true, kids, it probably is. Steve Glass made cosmetic attempts to fool the magazine’s fact checkers and to his amazement they continually worked. As he got away with it more and more frequently, he began to push the envelope. As I saw on 60 Minutes [2] last weekend, he fabricated stories about Monica Lewinsky Condoms and an evangelical church that worshipped George W. Bush. Nobody caught on — perhaps because they didn’t want to?

Stephen Glass is apologetic and pathologically repentant for his actions, claims to have been in therapy, and.. oh — by the way? He’s just published a fictional novel based on his life story (he apparently still can’t grasp his own irony) called “The Fabulist” [5]. His undoing was a wholly fictitious piece about a 15-year-old hacker who worked his way into the systems of a fake company called “Jukt Micronics” and extorted the company for tens of thousands of dollars not to do it again. When Forbes Magazine [3] attempted to follow up on the piece, well, they couldn’t verify a single fact.

The penny dropped.

More recently we hear the tale of 27-year-old New York Times reporter Jayson Blair [4], recently outed and accused of the same thing, though he made very few attempts to conceal his fabrications to fact-checkers. When the story broke this past May that Blair had plagiarized huge tranches of a story from the San Antonio Express-News for a New York Times piece on Iraq war MIAs, the New York Times began a forensic bumfuzzling that revealed a long history of fabricated quotes, people, and events– along with other blatant examples of plagiarism — among Blair’s 700 articles, and published a 7200 word article accounting for these. The accounting took only a week to examine the previous 7 months (73 articles) for Blair’s inventiveness.

The question is… if you can check 73 articles in a week, why aren’t you checking the facts all along? I suspect that the answer is more nefarious than Publishers or Editors would like to admit. The reality is that, in competing more and more for their audience, newspapers and magazine have made bold attempts to become edgier, innovative, conniving. Woodward & Bernstein agonized for weeks as they waited for fact-checkers, researchers, editors, and lawyers to release their Watergate story once completed. The reality is that, nowadays, editors risk missing out on a story by waiting too long — there’s too much competition from realtime media like CNN, CNBC, and Internet publications to risk missing out on a big piece.

And as the drive to be different from the pack gets ever more compelling, what constitutes a “big piece” becomes a broader and broader topic for editors. The lesson, as always, is that we just can’t hold these institutions in such high esteem as we do. They’re fallible, because they’re human, and as money and power and competition and politics further intervene in the journalistic process they tend to become more fallible, more easily manipulated, and more inaccurate.

…and, apparently, they become platforms for young fiction authors seeking to make a name for themselves. Even in the college of writers, apparently, it doesn’t matter how you get famous. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie based on Jayson Blair..

-Ian.

[1] http://www.tnr.com/archive/0698/062998/ourreaders062998.html [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml [3] http://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html [4] http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/ 691dnacb.asp [5] http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/columns/21note.html

-Ian.

—- http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId”11&lang=en

The Real But Unspoken Reasons For The Iraq War – OIL U$ Dollar vs. Euro 08.04.2003 [12:37]

Summary Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking – it an an oil CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration’s goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the “petro-dollar” and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth By W. Clark wrc92 [at] aol [dot] com “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be … The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.” Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war. First, why is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam? If Iraq’s WMD program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered U.N inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program. Third, and despite Bush’s rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan. Moreover, immediately following Congress’s vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea’s nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam’s seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea’s active program? Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were “exiled” we could avoid an Iraq war? Confused yet? Well, I’m going to give their game away – the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the â,. Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration’s goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the “petro-dollar” and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq… “The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro.” (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.) “The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq – or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq – is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way.” (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran – the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports). Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our ‘client state,’ the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a “Saudi Revolution” might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) (1). Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and grab Saudi’s oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq. “Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) – at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can – short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.” Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they’ll rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China.” This information about Iraq’s oil currency is censored by the U.S. media as well as the Bush administration & Federal Reserve as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/ spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This quasi “state secret” can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam’s switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000 (2). “Baghdad’s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency.” At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq’s U.N. “oil for food” reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition? “Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You’d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there’d surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar’s role as reserve currency. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. couldn’t function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy).” In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no “exit strategy” in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive “regime change” if they too move to euros for their oil exportsâ¤. Another underreported story from this summer regarding the other OPEC ‘Axis of Evil’ country and their interest in the selling oil in euros, Iran. (3) “Iran’s proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said. But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an “axis of evil.” The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country’s parliament, a parliamentary representative said.”There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea …now that the euro is stronger, it is more logical,” the parliamentary representative said.” More over, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran’s central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency (4) “More than half of the country’s assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union’s member countries. He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in global trade.” Indeed, after toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran is the next target in the “war on terror.” Iran’s interest in switching to the euro as their standard transaction currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this recent MSNBC article illustrates the objectives of the neo conservatives (5). “While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the administration⤔and allies at D.C. think tanks⤔are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk factor isactually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war may be Japan’s weak economy (6). If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan’s fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Indeed, Japan’s fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian government lacks the controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately force and OPEC switch to euros. Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged, as it is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. Thereby fostering the very situation this administration is trying to prevent, another OPEC member switching to euros as their oil transaction currency. Incidentally, the final “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002 (7). Unlike the OPEC-producers, their switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of the President Bush’s harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling is North Korea’s recent action following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea’s nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam was entirely contrived. Unfortunately, neo conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton’s Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: “For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.” During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (90-91′ & 98′), Serbia and Kosovo (99′) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the “America first” policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush’s “warmongering rhetoric” has created global tensions – as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration’s bellicosity haschanged the worldview, and “anti-Americanism” is proliferating even among our closest allies (8). Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with movements towards the euro (China, Venezuela, some OPEC producers and last week Russia flushed some of their dollars for euros) (9). It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration’s economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K. article outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes (‘Beyond Bush’s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?’)(10) “The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this scenario: 1) US global over-reach in the “war on terrorism” already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see — combined with historically-high US trade deficits – lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world’s capital. 2) More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity. 3) OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC’s oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to â,40 per barrel. 4) The Bush Administration’s efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide. 5) All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks. 6) The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world’s other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band — removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a “win-win” for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro. 7) Developing countries lacking dollars or “hard” currencies follow Venezuela’s lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural Venezuelan villages. “The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current account trade deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on terrorism or evil. The USA ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US administration begins to return to its multilateralist tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more realistic international cooperation.” As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on the above list may allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the failed military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed after 2 days, various reports suggest the CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved with the civilian/military coup plotters. (11) “George W. Bush’s administration was the failed coup’s primary loser, underscoring its bankrupt hemispheric policy. Now it is slowly filtering out that in recent months White Houseofficials met with key coup figures, including Carmona. Although the administration insists that it explicitly objected to any extra-constitutional action to remove Chavez, comments by senior U.S. officials did little to convey this.” “The CIA’s role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the working model for generating economic and social instability in order to topple Chavez. In the truckers’ strike of that year, the agency secretly orchestrated and financed the artificial prolongation of a contrived work stoppage in order to economically asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende government.” “This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with the Venezuelan military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders, to convert a relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior management into a nearly successful coup de grace.” Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan’s ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to the euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the failed coup attempt… Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan government official recently exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela (12): “Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Bayardi says he has information that far-reaching plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North American intelligence agencies tooverthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias” “Bayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications between the Bush administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting the latter’s cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union activists to “break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration” Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites whose political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested in privatizing Venezuela’s oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment might be concerned that Chavez’s “barter deals” with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. dollar out of the vital oil transaction currency cycle. Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela’s oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars. If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely. The U.S. economy has acquired several problems, including as our record-high trade account deficit (almost 5% of GDP), $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (55% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These are factors that would devalue the currency of any nation under the “old rules.” Why is the dollar still strong despite these structural flaws? Well, the elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not merely rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies. The reality is that the strength of the dollar since 1945 rests on being the international reserve currency and thus fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. “petro-dollar”). The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc. The “old rules” for valuation of our currency and economic power were based on our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker productivity, manufacturing output/trade surpluses, government oversight of accounting methodologies (ie. SEC), developed infrastructure, education system, and of course total cash flow and profitability. While many of these factors remain present, over the last two decades we have diluted some of these “safe harbor” fundamentals. Despite imbalances and some structural problems that are escalating within the U.S. economy, the dollar as the fiat oil currency created “new rules”. The following exerts from an Asia Times article discusses the virtues of our fiat oil currency and dollar hegemony (or vices from the perspective of developing nations, whose debt is denominated in dollars). (13) “Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce by fiat. The dollar, now a fiat currency, is at a 16-year trade-weighted high despite record US current-account deficits and the status of the US as the leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of April 4 was $6.021 trillion against a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion.” “World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world’s interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world’s central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world’s central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.” “By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets.””The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency,the US essentially owns the world’s oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win.” This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia has worked to our favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or ‘credit bubble’ in the view of some economists). These current structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are sustainable as long as: 1)Nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival needs 2)The fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the U.S. dollar (and dollar only) These underlying factors, along with the “safe harbor” reputation of U.S. investments afforded by the dollar’s reserve currency status propelled the U.S. to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the introduction of the euro is a significant new factor, and appears to be the primary threat to U.S. economic hegemony. More over, in December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for full membership into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people, directly competing with the U.S. economy ($10.5 trillion GDP, 280 million people). Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain (April 2002). He speech dealt entirely on the subject of OPEC oil transaction currency standard with respect to both the dollar and the euro. The following exerts from this OPEC executive provide insights into the conditions that would create momentum for an OPEC currency switch to the euro. Indeed, his candid analysis warrants careful consideration given that two of the requisite variables he outlines for the switch have taken place since this speech in early 2002. These vital stories are discussed in the European media, but have been censored by our own mass media (14) “The question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish itself in world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and consequently trigger a change in the dollar’s dominance in oil markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years has even gained more ground with the economic dominance of the United States, a situation that may not change in the near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition, the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The world’s dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar reserves, which are disproportionably higher than America’s share in global output. The share of the dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in world trade. Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US.” “From the EU’s point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the currency risk. It would also increase demand for the euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe.” “Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe’s two major oil producers ⤔ the United Kingdom and Norway join the single currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are the region’s two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent. This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros.” “In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future. The Organization, like many other financial houses at present, is also assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the single currency.” Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially could include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased European integration and a strong European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be on your side. I wish the euro every success.” Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged E.U. will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. This does not include other potential entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden. I should note that since this speech the euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar since late 2002, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro. Further, if or when the U.K. adopts the euro currency, that development could provide critical motivation for OPEC to the make the transition to euros. It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be based on if and when Norway’s Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, and when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. Again, I offer the following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these matters very carefully regarding the euro: “The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn of adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government’s strong desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro would pass with a comfortable margin and Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU membership. Indeed, with Norway having already integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA partnership and with their strongly appreciated currency, their accession to the euro would not only be effortless, but of great economic benefit. As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes & Norwegians. It’s the British who are the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as international transaction & reserve currency. So long as the United Kingdom remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange rate costs between the euro and the British pound remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a near-given in the long run) would mount significant pressure toward repegging the Brent crude benchmark – which is traded on the International Petroleum Exchange in London – and the Norwegians would certainly have no objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not they join the European Union.” Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar are already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see. An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 – barring political motivations (ie. motivations of OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie. prolonged high oil prices due to Iraq war causes Japanese bank collapse)- but appears quite viable to take place before the end of the decade.” In otherwords, around 2005, from an economic and monetary perspectivem, it will be logical for OPEC to switch to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will devalue the dollar, and hurt the US economy unless it begins making some structual changes – or use its massive military power to force events upon the OPEC states… Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPEC’sprice controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the “war on terror” as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC’s decision-making process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel’s inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros. How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel’s price controls in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S. General for the first several months) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the Bush junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil, quintupling Iraq’s current output – and well beyond OPEC’s 2 million barrel per day quota. Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq’s underutilized oil reserves will not be a “profit-maker” for the U.S. government, but it will serve as the crucial economic instrument used by the Bush junta to leverage and hopefully dissolve OPEC’s price controls, thus causing the neo conservative’s long sought goal of collapsing the OPEC cartel (15): “Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq’s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day. Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels. What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things. First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.” “The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place.” The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding President Bush’s upcoming war. Not only is Japan’s economy at grave risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing further momentum for OPEC to act on their “internal discussions” and switch to the euro as the fiat currency for oil. The Bush administration believes that by toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to control Iraqi’s huge oil reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10 remaining countries in OPEC. This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the best-case scenario of a quick and relatively painless war that topples Saddam and leaves Iraq’s oil fields intact. Undoubtedly, the OPEC cartel could feel threatened by the Bush junta’s stated goal of breaking-up OPEC’s price controls ($22-$28 per barrel). Perhaps the Bush administration’s ambitious goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have doubts. Will OPEC simply tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a lesson in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)? Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation re-denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision by would mark the end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend regarding the colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake: “One of the dirty little secrets of today’s international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America’s preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future. That such a course hasn’t been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven’t any interest to undergo the great disruptions which would follow – but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as any sort of ‘rogue’nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order (or, alternately, if an ‘every man for himself’ crisis as discussed above spirals out of control and forces their hand). The Bush administration and the neo conservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony. The paradox I’ve illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the quixotic course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to preempt. We shall see!” Under this administration we have returned to massive deficit spending, and the lack of strong SEC enforcement has further eroded investor confidence. Regrettably, the flawed economic and tax policies and of the Bush administration may be exacerbating the weakness of the dollar, if not outright accelerating some countries to diversify their central bank reserve funds with euros as an alternative to the dollar. >From a foreign policy perspective, the terminations of numerous international treaties and disdain for international cooperation via the UN and NATO have angered even our closest allies. Lastly, and despite President Bush’s attempt to use the threat of applying military force to OPEC producers who may wish to switch to the euro for their oil payments, it appears their belligerent neo conservative policies may paradoxically bring about the dire outcome they hope to prevent – an OPEC currency switch to euros. The American people are not aware of such information due to the U.S. mass media, which has been reduced to a handful of consumption/entertainment and profit-oriented conglomerates that filter the flow of information in the U.S. Indeed, the Internet provides the only source of unfiltered “real news.” Synopsis: It would appear that any attempt by OPEC member states in the Middle East or Latin America to transition to the euro as their oil transaction currency standard shall be met with either overt U.S. military actions or covert U.S. intelligence agency interventions. Under the guise of the perpetual “war on terror” the Bush administration is manipulating the American people about the unspoken but very real macroeconomic reasons for this upcoming war with Iraq. This war in Iraq will have nothing to with any threat from Saddam’s old WMD program. This war will be over the global currency of oil. Sadly, the U.S. has become largely ignorant and complacent. Too many of us are willing to be ruled by fear and lies, rather than by persuasion and truth. Will we allow our government to initiate the dangerous “pre-emptive doctrine” by waging an unpopular war in Iraq, while we refuse to acknowledge that Saddam does not pose an imminent threat to the United States? We seem unable to address the structural weakness of our economy due to massive debt manipulation, unaffordable 2001 tax cuts, massive current account deficits, trade deficits, corporate accounting abuses, unsustainable credit expansion, near zero personal savings, record personal indebtedness, and our dependence and over consumption of cheap Middle Eastern oil. How much longer can we reliably import our oil from middle eastern states that dislike or despise us because of our biased foreign policy towards Israel? Lastly, we must bear in mind Jefferson’s insistence that a free press is our best, and perhaps only mechanism to protect democracy, and part of today’s dilemma lies within the U.S. media conglomerates that have failed to inform the People. Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn’t find in Iraq regarding WMD, it appears that President Bush is determined to pursue his “pre-emptive” imperialist war to secure a large portion of the earth’s remaining hydrocarbons, and then use Iraq’s underutilized oil to destroy the OPEC cartel. Will this gamble work? Undeniably our nation may suffer not only from economic retribution, but also from increased Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism as well. Will we stand idle and watch CNN, as our government becomes an international pariah by discarding International Law as it wages a unilateral war in Iraq? Is it morally defensible to deploy our brave but naÃve young soldiers around the globe to enforce U.S. dollar hegemony for global oil transactions – via the barrel of their guns? Will we allow imperialist conquest in the Middle East to feed our excessive energy consumption, while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Latin America? Shall we accept the grave price of an unjust war over the currency of oil? We must not stand silent and watchour country become a ‘rogue’ superpower, relying on brute force, thereby forcing the industrialized nations or OPEC to abandon the dollar standard – thus with the mere stroke of a pen – slay the U.S. Empire? Informed citizens believe this administration is pushing us towards that dire outcome. Remaining silent is not only misguided, but false patriotism. This need not be our fate. When will we demand that our government begin the long and difficult journey towards energy conservation, the development of renewable energy sources, and sustained balanced budgets to allow real deficit reduction? When will we repeal of the unaffordable 2001 tax cuts to create a balanced budget, enforce corporate accounting laws, and substantially reinvest in our manufacturing and export sectors to move our economy from a trade account deficit position back into a trade account surplus position? Undoubtedly, we must make these and many more painful structural changes to our economy if we are to restore our “safe harbor” investment status. Ultimately we will have to make sacrifices by reducing our excessive energy consumption that we have become accustomed to as a society. It is imperative that our government also begins economic and monetary reforms immediately. We must adopt our economy to accommodate the inevitable competition to the dollar from the euro as an alternative international reserve currency and oil transaction currency. The Bush administration’s seemingly entrenched political ideology appears quite incompatible with these necessary economic reforms. Ultimately We the People must demand a new and more responsible administration. We need leaders who are willing to return balanced, conservative fiscal policies, and to our traditions of engaging in multilateral foreign policies while seeking broad international cooperation. It has been said that all wars are fought over resources or ideology/religion. It appears that this administration may soon add “currency wars” as a third paradigm. I fear that the world community will not tolerate a U.S. Empire that uses its military power to conquer sovereign nations who decide to sell their oil products in euros instead of dollars. Likewise, if President Bush pursues an essentially unilateral war against Iraq, I suspect the historians will not be kind to his administration. Their agenda is clear to the world community, but when will U.S. patriots become cognizant of their modus operandi? “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945 END OF ESSAY

+

Background Information on Hydrocarbons To understand hydrocarbons and how we got to this desperate place in Iraq, I have listed four articles in the Reference Section from Michael Ruppert’s controversial website: ‘From the Wilderness.’ Although some of Ruppert’s articles are overwrought from time to time, their research detailing the issues of hydrocarbons, and the interplay between energy and the Bush junta’s perpetual “war on terror” is quite informative. Other than the core driver of the dollar versus euro currency threat, the other issue related to the upcoming war with Iraq appears related to the Caspian Sea region. Since the mid-late 1990s the Caspian Sea region of Central Asiawas thought to hold approx. 200 billion barrels of untapped oil (the later would be comparable to Saudi Arabia’s reserve base)(16). Based on an early feasibility study by Enron, the easiest and cheapest way to bring this oil to market would be a pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan to the Pakistan border at Malta. In 1998 then CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, expressed much interest in building that pipeline. In fact, these oil reserves were a *central* component of Vice President Cheney’s energy plan released in May 2001. According to his report, the U.S. will import 90% of its oil by 2020, and thus tapping into the reserves in the Caspian Sea region was viewed as a strategic goal that would help meet our growing energy demand, and also reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East (17). According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth (18), the Bush administration ignored the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed upon the Taliban and entered into negotiations with the supposedly ‘rogue regime’ from February 2, 2001 to August 6, 2001. According to this book, the Taliban were apparently not very cooperative based on the statements of Pakistan’s former ambassador, Mr. Naik. He reports that the U.S. threatened a “military option” in the summer of 2001 if the Taliban did not acquiesce to our demands. Fortuitous for the Bush administration and Cheney’s energy plan, Bin Laden delivered to us 9/11. The pre-positioned U.S. military; along with the CIA providing cash to the Northern Alliance leaders, led the invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban were routed. The pro-western Karzai government was ushered in. The pipeline project was now back on track in early 2002, well, sort… After three exploratory wells were built and analyzed, it was reported that the Caspian region holds only approximately 10 to 20 billion barrels of oil (although it does have a lot of natural gas) (16). The oil is also of poor quality, with high sulfur content. Subsequently, several major companies have now dropped their plans for the pipeline citing the massive project was no longer profitable. Unfortunately, this recent realization about the Caspian Sea region has serious implications for the U.S., India, China, Asia and Europe, as the amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and developing nations has been decreased downward by 20%. (Globalestimates reduced from 1.2 trillion to approx. 1 trillion) (18, 19). The Bush administration quickly turned its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with it proven reserves totaling 11% of the world’s oil reserves. Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was quickly replaced with our new public enemy #1, Saddam Hussein… For those who would like to review the impact of depleting hydrocarbon reserves from the geo-political perspective, and the potential ramifications to how this may ultimately create an erosion of our civil liberties and democratic processes, retired U.S. Special Forces officer Stan Goff offers a sobering analysis in his essay: ‘The Infinite War and Its Roots’ (20). Likewise, for those who wish to review the unspeakable evidence surrounding the September 11th tragedy, the controversial essay “The Enemy Within” by the famous American writer Gore Vidal offers a thorough introduction. Although published in Italy and a major UK newspaper, The Observer, you will not read Gore Vidal’s controversial essay in the U.S. media. Note: Gore Vidal’s latest book, ‘Dreaming War’ features this as the opening essay (21). Finally, ‘The War on Freedom” by British political scientist Nafeez Ahmed asks disconcerting questions about the 9/11 tragedy (22). FOOTNOTES (1)London, Heidi Kingstone, ‘Middle East: Trouble in the House of Saud’ (January 13, 2003) http://www.jrep.com/Mideast/Article-0.html (2)Recknagel, Charles, ‘Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro’ (November 1, 2000) http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp (3)Gutman, Roy & Barry, John, Beyond Baghdad: Expanding Target List: Washington looks at overhauling the Islamic and Arab world (August 11, 2002) http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/newsweek081102.html (4)’Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key’ (August 2002) http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm (5)’Forex Fund Shifting to Euro,’ Iran Financial News, (August 25, 2002) http://www.payvand.com/news/02/aug/1080.html (6)Costello, Tom, ‘Japan’s Economy at Risk of Collapse’ (December 11, 2002) http://www.msnbc.com/news/845708.asp?0cl=cR (7) Gluck, Caroline, ‘North Korea embraces the euro’ (December 1, 2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2531833.stm (8) ‘What the World Thinks in 2002 : How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America’ (2002) http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID5 (9) ‘Euro continues to extend its global influence’ (January 7, 2002) http://www.europartnership.com/news/02jan07.htm (10) Henderson, Hazel, ‘Beyond Bush’s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?’ (June 2002) http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Bush’s%20unilateralism.htm (11) Birms, Larry & Volberding, Alex, ‘U.S. is the Primary Loser in Failed Venezuelan Coup,’ Newsday (April 21, 2002) http://www.coha.org/COHA%20_in%20_the_news/ Articles%202002/newsday_04_21_02_us__venezuela.htm (12) ‘USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela’s President,’ (Dec 12, 2002) http://www.vheadline.com/0212/14248.asp (link now dead) (13) Liu, Henry C K, ‘US Dollar hegemony has got to go,’ (Asia Times, April 11, 2002) http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html (14) ‘The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill,’ Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC’s Marketing Analysis Department (April, 2002) http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm (15) Dr. Ali, Nayyer, ‘Iraq and Oil,’ (December 13, 2002) http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/12132002.html (16) Pfeiffer, Dale, ‘Much Ado about Nothing — Whither the Caspian Riches? ‘ (December 5, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html (17) Ruppert, Michael, ‘The Unseen Conflict,’ (October 18, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101802_the_unseen.html (18) Jean Charles-Briscard & Guillaume Dasquie, ‘The Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden’, Nation Books, 2002. (19) Ruppert, Michael, ‘Colin Campbell on Oil.'(October 23, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html (20) Golf, Stan, ‘The Infinite War and its Roots,’ http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082702_infinite_war.html (21) Vidal, Gore, ‘Dreaming War: Blood for Oil & the Cheney-Bush Junta,’ Nation Books, 2002. His essay, ‘The Enemy Within’ was first printed in the UK’s Observer (Oct 27, 2002) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html (22) Ahmed, Nafeez, ‘The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001’, Tree of Life Publications, 2002.

NBC said on Monday: “It was wrong for Mr Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war.

“And it was wrong for him to discuss personal observations and opinions in that interview.”

Arnett, one of the few US correspondents left in Baghdad, became a household name reporting for CNN there during the Gulf War in 1991.

I want to apologise to the American people for clearly making a misjudgement Peter Arnett

NBC broadcast a statement from network officials on its Monday morning Today show announcing the sacking of the New Zealand-born journalist.

On the same broadcast, Arnett, 68, apologised to NBC and to the US public, saying he was “embarrassed” by the controversy.

“I want to apologise to the American people for clearly making a misjudgement,” he said.

“I am not anti-war, I am not anti-military,” Arnett said, although he added: “I said over the weekend what we all know about the war.”

Pulitzer prize

Arnett, a naturalised American, is in Baghdad for NBC and MSNBC’s National Geographic Explorer.

Iraqi television broadcast him saying “the first war plan has just failed because of Iraqi resistance. Clearly the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces”.

NBC had initially defended him on Sunday, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were analytical in nature.

But by Monday morning, after Arnett had spoken to NBC news president Neal Shapiro, the broadcaster said it would no longer work with him.

During the television interview, broadcast in English and translated by an Iraqi anchor, Arnett said: “Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States.

“It helps those who oppose the war, when you challenge the policy, to develop their arguments.”

Arnett’s comments drew criticism from US lawmakers.

Former New York senator Alfonse D’Amato said they gave “aid and comfort to the enemy”.

Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called them “just crazy” and Democrat Brad Sherman labelled them “absurd”.

Arnett won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for the Associated Press before making his name on television with CNN in Baghdad.

His reporting of an allied bombing of a baby milk factory there in 1991 drew criticism from the US military, which said it was a biological weapons plant.

Arnett stood by his report.

He was later the on-air reporter in the 1998 CNN report who accused American forces of using sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill US defectors.

Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded, later leaving the network. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/2903503.stm

Published: 2003/03/31 17:29:13

War Coverage Spurs ‘Backpack’ Reporters Tue Mar 25, 1:42 AM ET Add Technology – AP to My Yahoo!

By RACHEL KONRAD, Associated Press Writer

Armed with $15,000 in satellite phones and computers, Preston Mendenhall calls himself a “one-man band” who writes stories, snaps photographs and shoots video in combat zones.

The international editor for MSNBC.com spent most of February traveling alone in Syria, then joined other reporters in northern Iraq (news – web sites) to record Kurdish reactions to the American-led bombing.

His latest multimedia report — video, still images and words — described the collapse of the U.N.-backed oil-for-food program, which blocked fresh food supplies to 60 percent of Iraq’s 25 million people.

“You get a connection, set up the camera, point it at yourself and just do it — you’re live,” Mendenhall said from a satellite phone. “But if there’s any weapons of mass destruction, I’m outta here.”

Mendenhall, who sends pixelated video through a pair of special satellite telephones, is one of a growing number of journalists relying on lightweight laptops, satellite phones, inexpensive editing software and digital cameras.

The technology has resulted in streaming video from the most remote places on earth. It has also enabled a new breed of reporter, known as a “backpack journalist,” who often has greater mobility and flexibility than a camera crew.

They file real-time reports with equipment that is a fraction of the cost and size of conventional, shoulder-mounted cameras and other gear. They file primarily for the Web, with images they’ve edited themselves at the scene, and occasionally contribute to television.

“The people who can shoot video, write stories, do radio on the side, basically do it all — these are the journalists of the future,” said John Schidlovsky, director of the Washington-based Pew Fellowship in International Journalism. “The technology has made journalism much more immediate and instantaneous.”

Although they’re a tiny minority of the hundreds of foreign journalists in and around Iraq, backpackers could eventually change the complexion of news gathering.

But backpackers — also called solo journalists, or “sojos” — won’t eclipse mainstream media soon. Fear, fatigue and confusion often vanquish their sophisticated, lightweight equipment, which larger television operations use only when higher-quality video is unavailable.

Some experts also worry that less-seasoned sojos, particularly those who post directly to Web sites and don’t file through editors back home, will produce reports that lack context or analysis.

“Backpack journalists have to know the difference between when you’re a lone wolf and when you’re part of a greater whole — and they have to file with that in mind,” said Jane Ellen Stevens, a pioneer backpack journalist who teaches at University of California, Berkeley. Stevens specializes in science and technology and has been reporting backpack-style since 1997 from such locales as a research icebreaker in Antarctica and a space camp in Russia.

Travis Fox, a video journalist for WashingtonPost.com, filed footage on Saturday of coalition troops in Umm Qasr, Iraq building a POW camp.

For most of his stories, Fox uses a Sony PD150, a roughly $7,000, 12-pound digital video camera with a 5-hour battery. The gear is less than half the weight and one-tenth the cost of equipment used by crews for large networks.

But Fox, one of hundreds of U.S. journalists “embedded” with U.S. troops, knows that no medium can mask the limits of human endurance.

“We’re going to make a run for the border tomorrow, early,” Fox said wearily from a Kuwaiti hotel before the war started. “There are roadblocks. It’s a long shot. I’m not so much nervous or excited as I’m tired.”

Although Fox usually travels with other reporters, many backpackers work alone.

They worry about battery life, power outages and technical hiccups — without backup from co-workers.

CNN correspondent Kevin Sites is a pioneer backpack war journalist who mixes solo with team coverage and has, at times, been frustrated with the technical hurdles of his vocation. In one recent entry on his Web Site, he complained that “Iraq tech hell.”

Sites stopped posting journal entrys and photos on his own site last week when CNN asked him to concentrate on working for the network exclusively.

Other media organizations have shied away from backpacker technology because the quality of the images remains grainy.

London-based Associated Press Television News relies primarily on Sony’s broadcast quality electronic news gathering equipment — a $70,000 package that includes a shoulder-mounted camera, tripod, lens, batteries, lights and microphones. APTN usually dispatches a camera person, who hauls the 30-pound camera, as well as an on-camera journalist, who totes gear as well.

APTN has purchased smaller cameras but editorial manager David Modrowski said the company has no plans to migrate fully to backpack-style equipment.

“In proper, full sunlight, it’s pretty tough for the untrained eye to tell the difference,” Modrowski said of the lighter equipment. “But when you notice it is when you get to low-light conditions, and certainly now we’re seeing a lot of nighttime activity in Iraq.”

> From: Jeff Bone
> Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:45:59 PM US/Pacific
> To: fork [at] xent [dot] com
> Subject: [SPORK?] The Rise of the Reporters
>
>
> It’s been evident (IMHO) for a long time that the “big story” of the
> 90s wasn’t computers, or the Web, or buddy lists, or cell phones, or
> PDAs, or blogs, or any of the stuff us pure geeks probably immediately
> think of. Some of those stories might be the big stories of this
> decade — but the effects of all of the above, really, on a global
> scale, were in the 90s wildly overstated.
>
> The big story of the 90s went largely unreported — because news
> itself isn’t usually news. Seems to me that the big story of the 90s
> was the meteoric rise in global importance of television news networks
> in shaping world opinion, shaping the course of world events, and
> making the conduct of international relations a real-time endeavor.
> And of course, CNN really started this and came of age in the crucible
> of Baghdad ’91. To an even greater extent, global media is coming of
> age in this current conflict.
>
> This whole “embedding” thing has me totally fascinated. I heard a top
> Pentagon official on one of the networks a night or two ago talking
> about how they get real-time battle intel from these networks more
> often than through the chain of command. And the embedding thing
> isn’t just our reporters: I’m watching Aaron Brown on CNN talking to
> reporters from many countries and outlets — including Muslim media
> and *France* — that are embedded with our forces. (FWIW, the Arabic
> news networks have forces embedded w/ Iraqi forces, too. Ironically,
> the viewers of Al Jazeera and some of the other 9 or so similar
> networks *potentially* have better access to more balanced information
> than we do.)
>
> Real-time, largely non-partisan (face it, most at least try for some
> level of objectivity, though they succeed to degrees according to
> different agendas; but in general their value is diminished to the
> extent that they editorialize and spin the bitstream) private sector
> intelligence agencies.
>
> And they’ve become almost sacrosanct — they go everywhere, see
> everything, say whatever, and are pretty much untouched and unhindered
> by the national collective organisms and interests they operate
> within. Bizarre.
>
> Truly fascinating. Powerful force for good. Powerful force for evil.
> Suspicion warranted, but I can’t help but feel kind of awed. A
> 30-minute scan of CNN, Fox, etc. today — supplemented with broad
> reading of international online newspapers to triangulate and balance
> — probably gives any one of us access to more information of equal
> or superior quality than the information that intelligence officers in
> this or any other country had from a year’s intelligence gathering two
> decades ago. We’re more immediately and better informed more than the
> guys that made global policy during our parents’ era.
>
> Wow. Go CNN, et. al. 😉
>
> jb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ruth Seymour
> Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:59:10 PM US/Pacific
> To: kcrw [at] ianbell [dot] com
> Subject: Iraq Coverage on KCRW
> Reply-To: Ruth Seymour
>
> Dear KCRW listener:
>
> You can hear rolling coverage from NPR, the BBC and CNN on KCRW. We
> are cherry-picking from among these broadcast services, the AP
> newswire, and internet sources to bring you the most current and
> accurate information. Warren Olney and his news producers will add
> special segments as well.
>
> You can also log on to KCRWworldnews.com 24/7 for continuous live
> reports from NPR, the BBC, and the Voice of America. Check out our
> “Iraq Watch” Webpage for additional information.
>
> KCRW will continue to broadcast rolling coverage as events dictate.
> Keep tuned to KCRW on air and online for the latest developments. And
> if you’re a subscriber–please accept our sincere thanks for enabling
> us to produce and present this coverage.
>
>  
> Ruth Seymour
>
> General Manager

THE FAILED PROMISE OF NEW JOURNALISM Greg Hughes takes a harsh, unflinching look at why political journalism on the web is falling short of its potential.

| Dec.13.2002 |

The world of modern journalism has become a much busier (and more complicated) place in the last ten years.

For the average Westerner, the early 21st century is already turning out to be an interesting, albeit dangerous, era of political and economic change. And in this feeding frenzy of stories, some journalists and activists have been turning to the web to write, record and publish their views.

In effect, these reporters are trying to create a new form of historical record that is D.I.Y., innovative and above all else, independently-run.

But in spite of independent news groups like indymedia.org, mediachannel.org, mediaaccess.org and fair.org, there hasn’t exactly been a renaissance in the number of media outlets that actually get heard. Quite the opposite.

By the time you read this, a United Nations-endorsed, American-led coalition of nations bent on eliminating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his military apparatus will be making plans for a second visit to the Persian Gulf in a decade.

Yet besides the prospect of yet another war in this extremely unsettling political environment is the fact that, at least in the United States, popular support for such an attack on Iraq has been given the virtually unanimous support of the mainstream media; Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, CNN’s Pat “Soviet Canuckistan” Buchanan and a host of other television and radio hosts and networks gave their tacit approval to George W. Bush — permission to “go forth young man” and end what daddy couldn’t ten years earlier.

The irony of Americans’ continued deference to their media and political elites came when President Bush addressed the U.N. last month, stating that “Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.”

And it’s not as though Canada hasn’t been willing to follow suit. Foreign Affairs minister Bill Graham was quoted saying, “I think what will happen is Iraq will conform. I think its neighbours are now putting pressure on it to say, ‘Look, there is no alternative.’ And it’s very much thanks to the role of the United States that we’ve got the pressure there to make sure that this happens.”

In a perfect world, potential conflicts like Gulf War II wouldn’t even be happening. But even in a less-than-perfect situation, opposition to such an obvious, cloying attempt at masking U.S. oil interests in the Middle East should have better popular support — especially amongst the netizen journalists.

It seems so self-evident: The internet generation has been raised on, if you’re politically-minded, a steady diet of Noam Chomsky conspiracy theories, a five-party Canadian Parliament and youthful, invigorating political zines like punditmag.com. A medium like the net, rightly or wrongly, lets all voices (some abhorrent, some amusing) be heard.

Or so we figured.

Believing the internet to be a vehicle for real political change and dissenting voices is a view we might have subscribed to in, say, 1995. Nowadays, even the most compelling web site, the most well-organized chatroom or the best email listserv can’t hide the fact that the most effective means for political dialogue is a face-to-face dynamic.

The internet was supposed to help facilitate new kinds of communication and new kinds of thinking that went beyond the video screen or audio connection. What was hoped to link people, places and events beyond traditional media has turned into, well, every other mass medium. The lines have been drawn between corporate media juggernauts and bathtub gin operations — there is no middle ground anymore.

So why hasn’t the web given us a news source that promises ideas in a forum of immediacy and relevancy beyond corporate media?

Legitimate news groups like the CBC, CTV and CityTV are so strong in propagating their presence online because they are trusted and have the institutional memory to back up claims of their legitimacy. For one, the web remains in its infancy in terms of reporting legitimate news. While more opinions and views are present online, the culture of Matt Drudge — news based on rumours, not facts — remains dominant. While the public’s hunger for information has increased since the web’s breakthrough into popular consciousness, our demand for trustworthy sources has as well.

Yet web-based media has made the mistake of trying not only to emulate television, radio and print media all at once, but effectively reinventing the wheel several times over: Even sites like Plastic or Slashdot, some of the most “credible web media,” remain locked into niche reporting that relies mostly on second-hand information. And yes, Slashdot users are basically a large community of reporters, as are many web media sites. Even Salon, a zine conceived during the web’s initial foray into public life in 1995, has become a fluffier, less relevant source.

Does this mean that the net has matured to the point that, while any John or Jane Q. Public can set up a website on al Qaeda and voice their views, they won’t even be heard in the sea of CNNs and News Corps? Can independent voices and FTAA be taken seriously online if they don’t have the historical legacy to support themselves?

Well, not exactly.

Truly successful web-based journalism depends on going back to the basics of reportage; writing narratives and historical legacies that reflect the web’s non-linear perspectives. What this really means is that the adage “everything old is new again” is becoming more important in a medium that thrives on unique approaches to storytelling.

In many ways, some of the more successful forms of authorship online have been basically old forms of storytelling; weblogs are the electronic equivalent of written correspondence, serialized news stories are reported in a format similar to old newspaper serials, and websites such as bitbooks.com are writing and adapting works of fiction exclusively to reflect electronic realities.

While streamed video, Flash animation and audio feeds are only just beginning to make their mark on the web, this means the web must take a journalistic approach that harkens back to an era that did not have video or audio capabilities.

In effect, this means going back to the days of George Orwell, Charles Krauthammer and Hunter S. Thompson, in which stories were written with an almost literary feel that drew the reader in.

While political chatrooms, Ontario Premier Ernie Eves or emaillist servs can talk on end about the virtues of Maoist China, the New Democrats’ hopes for the future or even Friedrich Hayek’s libertarianism, the net will truly realize its potential for high-quality journalism when it has the power of original narratives behind it.