LALARRY

Here's Why I Only Read the LA Times for the Weather, Sports and Movie Times

LAT West (Sunday) Magazine:

Charlie Kaufman is a great American writer. Let's not equivocate or qualify this in any way. Yes, he writes for the movies; yes, his medium is the 100-plus-page script. But in all the ways that matter—his mastery of structure, his voice and vision, his recognition of the power of the word to remake the world—he stands with the finest writers of his generation, among them David Foster Wallace, Mona Simpson, Michael Chabon, Aimee Bender, Colson Whitehead and Jonathan Safran Foer. At times, he is even the best.

Kaufman's opus includes: Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Confessions of A Dangerous Mind

only in LA (oy vey) can the above screenplays be considered anything close to literature. Especially the one about the fantasies of the producer of the Gong Show (Confessions...)

Why I Have Withdrawal Symptoms if I Don't Get Through the NYT Each Day:

NYT website  (tobe appear in the book review section May 21, 2006)

What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Early this year, the Book Review's editor, Sam Tanenhaus, sent out a short letter to a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify "the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years." [Read A. O. Scott's essay. See a list of the judges.] Following are the results.

THE WINNER:

Beloved

Toni Morrison
(1987)

• Review

THE RUNNERS-UP:

Underworld

Don DeLillo

(1997)

• Review

Blood Meridian

Cormac McCarthy

(1985)

• Review

Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels

John Updike

(1995)

• Review: 'Rabbit at Rest'

(1990)

• Review: 'Rabbit Is Rich'

(1981)

• Review: 'Rabbit Redux'

(1971)

• Review: 'Rabbit, Run'

(1960)

American Pastoral

Philip Roth

(1997)

Am I The Only One That Finds This Logic Twisted ?

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," Mr. Bush said before leaving for a commencement address in Mississippi. "Our efforts are focused on links to Al Qaeda and their known affiliates."

but

One senior government official, who was granted anonymity to speak publicly about the classified program, confirmed that the N.S.A. had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States

so the efforts are focused but they include access to records of most telephone calls in their entire  country (over close to 4 yrs).

But the official said the call records were used for the limited purpose of tracing regular contacts of "known bad guys."

So if they know who he bad guys are:

1. why do they need to keep track of virtually every phone call in the United States ?

2. Why in the close to 4 yrs  since 9/11 have they only picked up maybe a dozen terrorists (and charged them almost all with minor offenses)  and broken up no active al qaeda cells ? And please don't tell me they have but have kept it secret. With W's poll numbers Karl Rove would have made sure to make it public.

"

To perform such traces," the official said, "you'd have to have all the calls or most of them. But you wouldn't be interested in the vast majority of them."

Bizarro World at the Office of Professonal Responsibility

With Access Denied, Justice Department Drops Spying Investigation

By SCOTT SHANE (NYT)

Published: May 11, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 10 — An investigation by the Justice Department ethics office into the conduct of department lawyers who approved the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program has been closed because investigators were denied security clearances, according to a letter sent to Congress on Wednesday.

Threats & Responses

The head of the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (sic!), H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in the letter to Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, that "we have been unable to make meaningful progress in our investigation because O.P.R. has been denied security clearances for access to information about the N.S.A. program."

Mr. Jarrett said his office had requested clearances since January, when it began an investigation, and was told on Tuesday that they had been denied. "Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," the letter said....

Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said that the N.S.A. program was "highly classified and exceptionally sensitive" and that "only those involved in national security with a specific need to know are provided details about this classified program." He said the legality of the eavesdropping program had been reviewed by other Justice Department offices and by the N.S.A. inspector general. (now i really feel better)

btw the security clearances are granted by....the NSA

No Sean, Actually It Doesn't Work That Way

Sean and Bill O are outdoing each other in their idiotic analysis of the increase in energy prices. Here's some of Sean's brilliance:

After telling a guest not to make it a partisan issue by criticizing the Repub Pres and Repub controlled Congress for their inaction, Sean declared:

The fault lies in 30 years of Democratic controlled government and their environmental policies.

Well not exactly Sean, if the Dems would have really taken to heart some of the environmentalists ideas we would be driving 50 mpg + cars, using alternative fuels and have access to extensive and comfortable intra and inter city mass transit.

Saving energy that way would have yielded both faster and more permanent lessening of our dependence on fossil fuels helping our economy, our national security and our environment.

but that's tough for Sean to understand

As for building new refineries, it was actually the energy companies that closed refineries over the last decade  because refining was such an unprofitable business.

And more offshore drilling . Wanna make a bet on how far you would get wtih brother Jeb in Fl. and the Governator in CA in trying to get that approved for their states ? And with gubernatorial elections coming in both states  don't count on any support for that idea on either side.

Seems like the people that would see lines of oil rigs as they lie on their beaches (or try to bring in tourists to do so) actually care about their environment.

but that's too  tough for Sean to understand

Another beaut from Sean: maybe it's not the oil companies to blame: it's the 50 cents + tax on a gallon of cash. Well Sean that money goes to build and maintain the roads. So let's cut that tax get more people driving, make the roads more congested and more in need of maintenance and then run a bigger deficit to pay for that.

good idea Sean

The Secretary of Addiction Meets With His Pusher

In implicit acknowledgement that the US is addicted to foreign oil and nothing is likely to change, Energy Secretary Bodman met with our pushers (oh, they called it the international energy conference). Some pictures of our Energy Secretary meeting with the feudal monarchies (and one socialist arab country) we are totally dependent on:

Here's Bodman with the Energy minister of Qatar

Here he is with the Qatari Oil Minister

Here wih the Minister of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of Algeria

Here with the All Important Pusher, Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia

A message from the pusher in chief:

Washington -- Saudi Arabia's oil minister scorned the popular notion that America can achieve energy independence as a myth, saying Tuesday the idea denies the existence of interdependent global markets and the need for countries to work together for oil-price stability.

More from the love fest at the conference (NYT), I don't know whether to laugh along or cry:

In Washington, Bonhomie for Saudi Oil Minister

By JAD MOUAWAD

WASHINGTON, May 2 — The stage could not have seemed less welcoming for a visit to Washington by Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Naimi.

For the first time in years, America wants to end what the president called its addiction to oil — by reducing imports, bolstering ethanol production and increasing sales of hybrid cars. The nation is once more talking about energy independence as a solution to high gasoline prices, and Congress is looking at legislation that would allow it to take the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to court for antitrust behavior.

But even with oil at $74.61 a barrel, Tuesday's reception for Mr. Naimi was friendly, even jovial.

... James R. Schlesinger, the country's first energy secretary under President Jimmy Carter, sought some insight from the man in charge of Saudi Arabia's energy industry.

"Mr. Naimi," Mr. Schlesinger asked, "do you live in fear that the United States will achieve energy independence?"

The audience went quiet. Sitting in the first row was the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson. Among the hundred-plus guests was a large number of oil executives, government officials, industry analysts, consultants and journalists. At Mr. Naimi's right, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, smiled.

"The answer," the Saudi official said with a grin, "is no."

"We welcome conservation," he added, pausing for dramatic effect. "And we could start conservation in this building. It's freezing in here."

The crowd roared. Call it the lighter side of crude....

Producers are pumping at full capacity — and most consumers know it. The growth in consumer demand is pushing up prices — and producers are powerless to rein in prices.

Still, Mr. Naimi used the opportunity to dispute the notion that self-reliance on oil would translate into higher energy security for the United States. "There is no truth, whatsoever, to the popular belief that the dependence on foreign crude leads to higher prices for gasoline at the pump," Mr. Naimi said. ( i can see Mr. Naimi caught the bizarro world disease in DC)

Referring to the high oil prices, he said, "Saudi Arabia doesn't really want this price nor do we seek it." ( i mean why should they want something that costs them a couple bucks to bring out of the ground go from unde $30 to $75 (and on the way to $100) a barrel

There were more serious moments — like when Mr. Naimi said he expected more attacks on the kingdom's energy infrastructure, like the failed attempt to bomb the Abqaiq processing plant in February. "They will probably try again and again," he said. "But we will frustrate their efforts."( in other worlds we'll be there with our troops to save our pusher's behind)...

....Mr. Bodman, in turn, seemed to play down the administration's plans to wean the country off its oil imports. Even if ethanol production reached five million barrels a day by 2025, the United States would "still be using both imported and domestically produced oil and natural gas in very significant quantities," he said.(your energy Secy at work in front of the global energy producers and refiners)...

He also said the administration was opposed to a bill in Congress that would open the door to antitrust suits against OPEC, of which Saudi Arabia is the leading representative.

"Mr. Naimi, we are begging you to increase capacity," Mr. Schlesinger said, summing up America's complicated attitude toward oil, "and at the same time, we're threatening to sue you if you do."

The audience, again, laughed.

(no, I could not make this stuff up)

I assume the representatives of Venezuela (our number 2 supplier and US basher) , Bolivia (just nationalized its natural gas industry) and Iran, world's second largest oil exporter (need I say why ?) didn't return Secretary Bodman's invitation to meet.

Oreilly in Wonderland

I have restrained myself  of late in pointing out BillO's inanities but I couldn't resist this one:

From the April 26 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly (thks media matters)

There isn't any right-wing cabal at all in the United States, because it's fragmented. Now, there is obviously right-wing talk radio, which is very successful, and there's obviously the Fox News Channel, which some believe is a right-wing enterprise. I work there, and I can tell you it is not. And if you do an analysis every day of the voices and the time given to stories and people, you'll see that liberal people get just as much time as conservative people on the Fox News Channel, and the commentators are pretty much split down the middle on their ideological bent. So that's a bunch of garbage.

split down the middle

like say Brit Hume's panel of commentators:

Krauthammer (right)

Barnes (author of a hagiography of W = right)

Kondracke (right)

Mara Liason (npr - you can call her left if you want)

Or that FOXNEWS commentary show: Beltway Boys in which Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes almost have orgasms agreeing and finishing each others' questions

Or Neil Cavuto on business where in a typical moment he literally interrupted and shouted down Dem Cong Durbin in an interview. Author of a bestselling rightwing diatribe of "economic analysis"

Or John Gibson (the funny hair guy) author of the War on Christmas

but oh yes the meek Alan Colmes gets 1/3 of the airtime to set up the diatribes and distortions of college dropout ex construction worker Sean Hannity.

and of course Tony Snow left Fox to join the WH because he always played things right down the middle.

yup fair and balanced

If You're A Financial Markets Geek Like Me (and maybe even if your're not)....

You will find this video quite funny.

It's also on youtube entitled Every Step Bernake Takes

Thank You, Thank You NPR ! Someone in The Media Actually Sat Through More than the First Hour of the First Day of Econ 101 and Absorbed Something !!!!!

more here

OK. So the rising cost of crude oil and of refining help account for the spike in gas prices. But at the same time, oil companies are reporting record net profits. They're being accused of price gouging. What's their response?

Big oil companies are making most of their money by producing crude oil. They invested in oil fields when prices were much lower, with the expectation that they could break even at, say, $25 per barrel. Since the market price is now more than $70 a barrel, the extra money is gravy. It's like a farmer who can raise corn for $1.50 a bushel. If the market price is $1.75, he makes a quarter per bushel. If the market price jumps to $2.25, his profits jump as well. (If the market crashes to $1 per bushel, the farmer loses money. That can happen to oil companies as well.) Oil companies, like the farmer, are the beneficiaries of high market prices, but they can no more control those prices than a farmer can dictate what he gets for a bushel of corn.

Critics would say the oil industry is far less competitive than the corn market, which is certainly true. But if oil companies could control the price of crude oil, they would not have allowed the price to fall to $10 a barrel as it did in 1998.

Then who sets the prices?

Oil companies don't set crude-oil prices; the global market does. Basically, the market decides what people are willing to pay at a certain moment in time. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the world is getting richer. Countries like

India

and

China

are growing, and that has created more demand for oil and gas. In the

United States

, we're still going full throttle when it comes to energy use. At the same time, there have been supply disruptions and political instability in major oil-producing nations. So you have a situation where demand has been growing steadily and inexorably, and the system of supply is quite vulnerable. That's the basic recipe for high prices. (amazing how that works, isn't it ?)

Hey Bill Let's Breakup the Broadcast Networks

From Bill O's summary of one of this week's shows:

Oil companies are reaping record profits, and Senator Chuck Schumer has been among their harshest critics in Washington. "They find excuses to raise profits," Schumer told The Factor. "Hurricane Katrina forced the price of oil up, but they raised it more and kept it higher. There's only one real answer, and that's to break these guys up. You can not have four or five big oil companies because you get no competition. Who let them merge? Bill Clinton. This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. The government's one job is to make sure there is competition." Senator Schumer vowed to introduce legislation to confront, in his words, "windfall profits, profiteering, and gouging.

Hmmm. let's see: Broadcast networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and WB (I think that's only 5)

News networks: Fox, CNN, MSNBC

Newspapers in NYC: Daily News, NYT and NYP (murdoch owned)

and the most approvals of media mergers has occurred.....under the current administration

more wisdom from Bill:

Even though oil supplies are plentiful, gas prices are 64 cents a gallon higher than a year ago. The Factor blamed the situation on oil companies and financial manipulators. "We have speculators driving up the price because they fear something bad will happen in Iran. The oil companies then use that as an excuse to raise prices when they don't have to." Arguing the other side was journalist Mac Johnson, who said that any business naturally maximizes profit. "The oil industry went through a downturn for a long time where it was not worth their while to find oil. Now they're finally entering the upside of the cycle and it's in their interest to go out and find new sources of oil. The federal government and state governments are making more per gallon in taxes than the oil companies are in profits." The Factor framed the issue in patriotic terms. "You didn't see profiteering in World War II, and you shouldn't see it now. We're in a war on terror, and the oil companies are damaging their own country."

Hey Bill wanna be patriotic ?: call for govt policies that will wean us away from oil from folks like the Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans and Sudanese as soon as possible. As Tom Friedman argues in today's NYT, the most patriotic thing to do would be to tax gasolne at least another $1 per barrel.

What Could Be More Pathetic ...

... than the politicans of both parties who have done jack about an energy policy for decades, scrambling to do something as people bitch about gas prices and proposing:

$100 tax rebate to consumers (repubs) -- at least make it a $100 tax credit for documented use of public transportation

and

"windfall profit tax and irs investigation" of oli cos. (dems).

In other words develop energy sources, invest in infrastructure, suffer losses in the periods when oil prices (set by the world mkt, not you), but pay extra taxes when you make more money.

Now THAT is guaranteed to encourage them to invest in alternative energy so that when they start to make money on that they get extra taxes slapped on them.

Brilliant, we are truly in bizarro world: let's start policies that will reduce supplies, increase demand and while we're at it do nothing among emissions.

And I love the American people: bitch, bitch, bitch and hold Oiliver Stonelike views of why gas is higher.

  And Chevy Tahoe sales are up 27%  (officially 15 mpg city/21 highway, although you know it will never get that) Over $80 to fill up at current prices

At least Tom Friedman in the NYT is talking some sense. The Economist magazine has been advocating this policy: higher gasoline taxes to drive people away from high gas consumption and use of the tax proceeds to pay down the deficit and fund alternative energy research.