Hey, ya know what? Wanna hear something shocking? Something that will make your jaw drop in surprise?

I really hate George W. Bush.

No...really.

From this morning's NY Times:

Approval of Park Drilling Angers Environmentalists

By BLAINE HARDEN

PADRE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE, Tex., Nov. 21 � The Bush administration has approved the drilling of two new natural gas wells in this national park, which lies along the nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach.

The approval, which has not yet been publicly announced and which follows a decision last spring to permit the drilling of an exploratory gas well in the park, ratchets up an environmental quarrel about the pace and wisdom of energy development on federal land. The Interior Department, which oversees the national parks, said the drilling would be done carefully to protect the park's 80-mile-long unspoiled beach and the 11 endangered species on the island.

The department points out that oil and gas exploration is not new on this barrier island. Sixty wells have been drilled here in the last 50 years, but the pace of drilling has fallen off sharply in the last two decades�

But national environmental groups, along with private organizations that monitor the federal parks, are outraged, pointing out that oil and gas exploration appeared to be phasing out in the park. The drilling has also upset experts on sea turtles who are working to protect the world's smallest and most endangered sea turtle, the Kemp's Ridley. Padre Island is the principal American nesting ground for the turtles and the center of an intensive 20-year federal effort to save them from extinction�

To accommodate construction of the two new wells, the National Park Service will allow heavy trucks to drive about 20 times a day over turtle nesting grounds. Park service officials said here that they would prefer that drilling and truck traffic not occur in the spring and early summer, the turtles' nesting season, when they lay their eggs in holes they dig in the sand. That is also when most of the park's 800,000 annual human visitors come to the beach.

But the Nov. 8 decision by the park service allows trucks the right to roll at any time of the year, though at slow speeds and in escorted convoys.

"We now have an administration that thinks running a couple of hundred 18-wheelers over nesting grounds of endangered sea turtles inside a national park is not a significant environmental impact," said Robert Wiygul, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, which sued the Interior Department last spring in an effort to stop the exploratory well...

Another Sierra Club lawyer, Sanjay Narayan, said the government appeared to be opening the door to an extensive and long-term gas operation in the park.

There is enough gas � 80 billion cubic feet � underneath the island for 15 more wells, which might take up to 30 years to drill, according to an estimate by the United States Geological Survey.

Officials from the park service and from the company doing the drilling, BNP Petroleum of Corpus Christi, Tex., declined to predict how many or when more wells might be drilled here. A senior Interior Department official said future drilling depended on how much gas was produced by the new wells (two wells drilled in the 1990's were dry holes), as well as whether profits justified the cost.

The decision to drill on Padre Island comes as the Bush administration, in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil, is encouraging drilling at more than 50 new sites on federal land in the lower 48 states, in addition to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Critics of the president's energy policy describe the drilling here as a blatant example of what they say is a White House that is turning back decades of environmental progress in energy exploration in the West.

"This drilling is designed to enrich an oil company at the expense of the park, its visitors and its marine life,' said Randy Rasmussen, southwest regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which advocates park preservation.

Similar complaints echoed this week across much of the West � and not just from environmentalists.

In northwest New Mexico, three large ranchers who lease federal land have restricted the access of gas operators who lease mineral rights on the same land. The ranchers accused the operators of sloppy, frenzied and dangerous practices that were killing cattle and fouling land. In response to the limited access, several oil companies sued the ranchers this week to regain what they say is their rightful access to the land.

"It has gotten out of hand, especially in the past two years," said Chris Valesquez, who runs an 18,000-acre ranch. "I lost seven cattle this year, four run over by vehicles and three poisoned by chemicals around the gas wells."

Mr. Valesquez said the federal Bureau of Land Management was not enforcing its own regulations to limit the spill of toxic chemical around well sites.

In Denver this week, several ranchers joined about 60 leaders of environmental groups for what they described as a somber meeting about the speed with which the president was turning policy in Washington into action across the West.

"There is a stampede going on," said Dan Heilig, executive director of the Wyoming Outdoor Council, a conservation association. "We are seeing laws that require multiple use of the land being trumped by the national energy initiative."

Nowhere is the pace quicker than in Wyoming, where environmentalists expect that in January the Bureau of Land Management will approve its proposal for more than 51,000 new gas wells, the largest natural-gas project ever studied by the bureau.

Here on Padre Island, park service officials hand out highlighted copies of the 1962 law that created the national park. It guarantees that privately owned oil and gas deposits can be removed by methods that "are reasonably necessary."

Jock Whitworth, superintendent of Padre Island National Seashore, said that while the park could not stop gas drilling, it was controlling it with what he called the strictest drilling regulations anywhere in Texas. He said the park had received excellent cooperation from BNP Petroleum to use its trucks in a way to do the least harm to nesting turtles.

In another part of the national park system, Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, where the law also allows oil and gas exploration, the Bush administration decided last January that drilling apparently would cause impairment, as a 1916 park service mandate says it should preserve scenery and wildlife "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The administration promised to buy out mineral rights or swap mineral rights elsewhere for those in Big Cypress so there would be no more drilling in the preserve.

Here in South Texas this week, as word of the new gas drilling began to leak out, environmentalists complained bitterly about Florida...

Copyright The New York Times Company

~~~

WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE LOOKING IN TO ENERGY ALTERNATIVES?????????????

I'm really sick of this. All of this. Not only are we going to war over oil (yes, I hate to break it to you people, but our troops moving in to Iraq really has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear and/or biological warfare build-up or the fact that Sadaam is "this generation's Hitler" or any such nonsense as spouted by our beloved and illegally "elected" President. There are a lot of little Hitlers running around on this planet, there are other sovereign nations who have nukes; we really couldn't give a shit, unless they happen to live smack dab on top of a huge oil reserve. In fact, if you happen to be a little Hitler who will help us out in the way of oil - say if you happen to want to run Colombia or Venezuela- we'll even support your taking power.) we also take every available and politically strategic opportunity to rape our environment for it. I say "politically strategic opportunity" because we'll only rape the environments off the coast of states that are NOT governed by someone with the last name of Bush.

As a Californian, off-shore oil drilling is a big issue to me. You may recall that a few months ago, Dubya was discussing all of this off-shore drilling he wants to do so that we can get out from under our reliance on foreign oil (yeah, right. There isn't enough oil in this hemisphere to allow for that, but of course we never really hear about that very much. We are also never reminded just how many members of Dubya's cabinet and how many of his buddies are still heavily financially invested in the oil business and will benefit immensely from our attempts at becoming free of this reliance on foreign oil and/or the development of new pipelines wherever we can get 'em). Initially, he wanted to drill off of Florida, Alaska and California. Before his brother, the governor of Florida, got in to the heat of his campaign for reelection, Bush rescinded his plan for off-shore drilling in the waters surrounding Florida. His excuse? "The people of Florida do not want drilling. The people of California and Alaska do."

The man fuckin� lied through his teeth. What a shocker.

For those of you who do not live in our state, let me assure you that we Californians have numerous times voted down ballot initiatives in favor of additional off-shore drilling; we have numerous times voted in favor of environmental protection acts. We are very vocal about protecting our waters and our environment in general. We have to be. We fucked it up, royally, for many decades. Now we�re having to repair the damage done. Take it form someone who grew up in the LA area suffering tremendous lung problems as a direct result of being able to chew on the air. Take it from someone who read news article upon news article about three headed fish being found in the waters off the port of Los Angeles (you know - where a lot of oil rigs are)while she was growing up.

Ask any business-owner and he'll tell you how tough the environmental laws are in California. That's actually why we've lost so much of our industry in the last thirty years - it's just too tough and/or too expensive for many to run a business here. And it's mainly because of our environmental protection laws.

Hell, ask anyone who has to go through their bi-annual car smog check, especially in high-populated areas.

Anyway, my point is that Bush lied. He doesn't give a shit about the environment, that's obvious. He also doesn't give a shit about what the people think or what they want - hell, if he paid attention to what the people wanted he wouldn't even be in office, now would he? So to use as his excuse that "the people of Florida don't want off-shore oil drilling" is so offensive to me.

But back to this NY Times article and my current source of wrath. And I tell ya...I�m not only pissed at Dubya � I�m pissed at all of us. Not only do I want to know why Bush isn�t encouraging both the development of energy alternatives to oil and gas, and the conservation of both; I WANT TO KNOW WHY WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN�T ASKING HIM WHY HE�S NOT DOING THESE THINGS!!!

Why are we content to sit here and let our kids go off to some foreign land not only to fight a war but possibly to die in one or come home suffering from some strange disease probably contracted from chemical warfare (remember the last Gulf War, people?)? Why are we content to let thousands of people get bombed on a daily basis? Why are we content to sit back and let our President take preemptive acts of war against a sovereign nation when it is not only against international law, but against our own? Why aren�t we asking these questions?

We sit here and listen to the news telling us that everyone is now in happy agreement over the U.S.-drafted resolution that was recently endorsed by the entire UN Security Council but we don�t ask why. What changes were made so that everyone would agree?

You know what we did? We lied. We plain made shit up to justify a preemptive strike, should we need to take one...actually, should we need to take more of them.

Like most people, I hope we can get the weapons inspectors over there to do their jobs and hopefully this will prevent a war. Like most people, I don�t really believe that will happen. Like most people, I fully expect to hear on the news about how uncooperative Iraq is being and how they aren�t really allowing full inspections after all. That is what happened the last time the UN had inspectors over there, right?

So I decided last night to go look at some web pages. I started with the UN.You can see a lot there. The good thing for our government is that evidently not very many people bother to go look. If they did, we�d all be asking these questions that I am about to bring up.

Specifically, I�ve been wondering about this UN Security Council and what exactly the terms are of this resolution. What I read was...well, I�d like to say it was surprising, but given the Bush administration�s penchant for "manipulating the truth", I really am not surprised at all.

I urge everyone to go look at the resolution and see this for yourself. In a nutt-shell, here�s what is says:

* The United States, as a member state of the UN Security Council, was authorized in 1990 to use extreme military force to implement the provisions of resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions pertaining to Iraq, and to restore "peace" and "security" to the region.

* In 1991, resolution 687 provided a blueprint for actions that Iraq would have to take in order to end hostilities in the area and restore that peace and security.

* Resolution 687 also explicitly made fulfillment of those obligations by Iraq a prerequisite for a ceasefire to go into effect.

* Iraq has, however, never fulfilled those obligations.

* The ceasefire, therefore, never actually went into effect, and we are still duty-bound to achieve our "stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area" by "all necessary means."

We are then, conveniently enough, entirely justified in having spent the last decade randomly bombing Iraq, restricting and patrolling its airspace, and launching massive air strikes in 1998 -- all of which were unilateral military actions taken without UN sanction, but which have now been retroactively blessed by the Security Council.

And we are also, of course, justified now in initiating a full-scale invasion of the country.

The resolution does not prohibit unilateral military action by the United States without further authorization by the UN. Also, contrary to popular opinion, it does not necessarily require any further "breach" by Iraq in order to trigger a military attack. What the resolution actually says, and says fairly explicitly, is that we are already at war with Iraq, and have been continuously since 1990.

Anything we do then, and everything that we have done since the time when everyone thought the war ended, back in 1991, is sanctioned by the UN and by international law by virtue of the fact that we aren't actually starting a new war, but are actually continuing one that we started twelve years ago.

Uh...say what?

While much is this on the surface may appear to almost make sense, the problem is that none of this is exactly true.

It might also be good to read statements by an organization of attorneys who call themselves "Lawyers Against the War". Whether or not you agree with their agenda, it is important reading. The law is the law. The truth is the truth.

And Dubya is a big fat liar.

OK, actually, his whole cabinet is full of big fat liars. He is the Commander in Chief, though, so we�ll use him as the focal point of our accusations and anger for the time being ("our" meaning "me, my and mine" of course).

Dr. Glen Rangwala of the University of Cambridge, writing for this group of attorneys, calls these assertions that we�ve been at continuous war for the last thirteen years "an even more egregious re-writing of history" than other examples that are cited by the group, such as the assertion that Iraq "ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998," which is denounced as "a wholly disingenuous claim," and the pronouncement that the Council has made "repeated demands that Iraq provide" access to UNMOVIC, which is dubbed "a pure fabrication."

"...The US-UK are attempting to award themselves the legal right to use force if they alone perceive Iraq as non-compliant; the abandonment of the specific authorization to use force that was in earlier drafts is thus resuscitated in an oblique but legally equivalent form here."

Of course, I have no idea why the entire Security Council would go along with our re-writing of history.

I read somewhere (damn, I wish I could remember where) that "truth is what[ever] people can be conditioned to believe."

The resolution orders Iraq to provide, within thirty days, "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems ..." This is followed by the explicit warning that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution...shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Hmm...so the U.S. is granting itself the power to determine if Iraq is lying about any possible weapons development programs before any actual weapons inspections begin. How nice for us. I would think the point of a weapons inspection would be to determine whether said weapons exist at all. We�re basically saying we already know the status of their weapons program so we will know if Sadaam is lying before the words escape his lips. And of course if he lies, we have just cause to carpet-bomb his country.

Talk about a lose-lose situation for Iraq. We say they have nukes. They just as adamantly say they don�t. If they continue to deny this, we�ll consider them to be liars which is of course a "material breach" and reason to start a war. If they don�t deny it, what then? Then Iraq will be declared to be "in material breach of its obligations" arising from various other UN resolutions that have called for the dismantling of such programs. This "material breach" is also cause to start a war. Er...excuse me...continue the war we've been fighting for the last decade, unbeknownst to all of us.

But wait, there�s more.

Once the UN Inspectors are in Iraq, the resolution includes a provision that the security of the weapons inspection teams "shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards." It's a pretty safe bet that it will not be up to Iraq to decide what is a "sufficient" number of armed foreign troops to allow into the country. As the Lawyers' missive notes, "Iraq is being asked to accept a resolution that permits a foreign military presence on its soil, without knowing the nature of that military presence." What if Bush and Blair decide that 10,000 troops, or 100,000 troops, is a "sufficient" number of "security guards" to send into the country?

I wonder what our reaction would be to some foreign country coming with their military and spouting these sort of dictates.

Iraq has been ordered to disclose "any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material," and to allow the inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates."

The resolution also contains a provision that allows inspectors to essentially kidnap Iraqi officials and scientists, along with their families, and transport them out of the country for "questioning."

Another provision grants the inspectors the authority to create what are dubbed "exclusion zones," in which all "ground and aerial movements" will be suspended. This, of course, is in addition to the already established "no-fly zones."

There are other problems with the resolution as well. The legal group notes that one passage calls for "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential sites equal to that at other sites" -- which tramples brazenly over previous UNSCR 1154, which established special procedures for inspecting the presidential palaces. Rangwala writes: "For the UN to abandon the principle that the agreements that it makes can be overridden to the detriment of the other party would be to cast a grave aspersion on the United Nations and the fabric of international law."

Iraq, in response, claims to welcome the inspections with open arms. They claim to see this as a way of clearing themselves of the accusations of the Bush and Blair administrations, thereby creating international support for the lifting of the deadly sanctions. In the words of Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Naji Sabri: "Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, as claimed by evil people."

However...Even if Iraq can somehow manage to maneuver its way through the inspections procedures, the U.S. has included an "if all else fails..." provision in the resolution by including a reference to UNSCR 688, which demands an immediate end to "the repression of the Iraqi civilian population." So basically, we�re leaving ourselves room to claim that Iraq is not in compliance with the new resolution, even if there is full cooperation on the disarmament issues. I would be in full support of this human rights clause, if I believed any of it; if I believed we actually cared; if I didn't think we were just using Sadaam's human rights abuses as a final excuse.

I want to run away somewhere and hide from all of this. In the immortal words of Merle Haggard: "Turn me loose, set me free somewhere in the middle of Montana."

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.