He cometido el peor de los pecados que un hombre puede cometer. No he sido feliz. Que los glaciares del olvido me arrastren y me pierdan, despiadados.
Mis padres me engendraron para el juego arriesgado y hermoso de la vida, para la tierra, el agua, el aire, el fuego.
Los defraudé. No fui feliz. Cumplida no fue su joven voluntad.
Mi mente se aplicó a las simétricas porfías del arte, que entreteje naderías.
Me legaron valor. No fui valiente. No me abandona. Siempre está a mi lado. La sombra de haber sido un desdichado.
Jorge Luis Borges.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
EL BROMISTA
Ivins: President Bush, America's Jokester
By Molly Ivins
The Texas Observer
AUSTIN, Texas -- I like to think that Republicans are having fun. They're such cards. What a wheeze, what a jape. Talking about energy independence in the State of the Union Address! President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil" and we will "break this addiction." Oh what a good trick to see if anyone thought he actually meant it!
I'm not going to embarrass the perennial suckers who fell for it by identifying them, but I assure you they include some well-known names in journalism. Boy, I bet they feel like fools, having written those optimistic columns pointing to how Bush had made a fine proposal -- cut oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025 -- and people should take it seriously and stop dissing him.
Of course, the next day the administration trotted out Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and Alan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council, to assure us the president didn't mean it. Bodman explained, "That was purely an example." A 'for instance.' Like, we could set a goal like that. Actually, we could do that without breaking a sweat: set fuel efficiency standards at 40 miles per gallon in 10 years (hybrids already get higher mileage now), and you save 2.5 million barrels a day, just what we import now from the Mideast.
According to Knight Ridder, "Asked why the president used the words 'the Middle East' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him into trouble."
Aw. Let's see, Bush lied so "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." It's our fault. We're so dumb, if he doesn't lie, we don't get it. Of course, those sophisticates who pay attention to stuff like the budget, where they decide how to spend the money, were already aware that the $150 million (a truly pitiful amount by Washington standards) Bush promised would go to making biofuels more competitive is $50 million less than what was in last year's budget for that purpose.
But, you are not to assume that Bush has given up on the Dick Cheney plan to drill our way to energy independence just because he didn't mention it in his speech. Last month, the Department of Interior released a plan that will open 590,000 acres in Alaska's Western Arctic Reserve for drilling. The land has been protected for decades.
The head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Alaska Project, Chuck Clusen, said: "Scientists, sportsmen and conservation groups all agree we should protect the last 13 percent of the most sensitive habitat in the Western Arctic's Northeast area. Eighty-seven percent was already open. The Bureau of Land Management decided to hand all of it over to the oil companies. ... We can drill every last acre of wilderness, and it won't make us any more secure. We only have 3 percent of the world's oil, and the Middle East has 66 percent. Do the math. We can't drill our way to energy independence."
What a good joke.
By Molly Ivins
The Texas Observer
AUSTIN, Texas -- I like to think that Republicans are having fun. They're such cards. What a wheeze, what a jape. Talking about energy independence in the State of the Union Address! President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil" and we will "break this addiction." Oh what a good trick to see if anyone thought he actually meant it!
I'm not going to embarrass the perennial suckers who fell for it by identifying them, but I assure you they include some well-known names in journalism. Boy, I bet they feel like fools, having written those optimistic columns pointing to how Bush had made a fine proposal -- cut oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025 -- and people should take it seriously and stop dissing him.
Of course, the next day the administration trotted out Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and Alan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council, to assure us the president didn't mean it. Bodman explained, "That was purely an example." A 'for instance.' Like, we could set a goal like that. Actually, we could do that without breaking a sweat: set fuel efficiency standards at 40 miles per gallon in 10 years (hybrids already get higher mileage now), and you save 2.5 million barrels a day, just what we import now from the Mideast.
According to Knight Ridder, "Asked why the president used the words 'the Middle East' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him into trouble."
Aw. Let's see, Bush lied so "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." It's our fault. We're so dumb, if he doesn't lie, we don't get it. Of course, those sophisticates who pay attention to stuff like the budget, where they decide how to spend the money, were already aware that the $150 million (a truly pitiful amount by Washington standards) Bush promised would go to making biofuels more competitive is $50 million less than what was in last year's budget for that purpose.
But, you are not to assume that Bush has given up on the Dick Cheney plan to drill our way to energy independence just because he didn't mention it in his speech. Last month, the Department of Interior released a plan that will open 590,000 acres in Alaska's Western Arctic Reserve for drilling. The land has been protected for decades.
The head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Alaska Project, Chuck Clusen, said: "Scientists, sportsmen and conservation groups all agree we should protect the last 13 percent of the most sensitive habitat in the Western Arctic's Northeast area. Eighty-seven percent was already open. The Bureau of Land Management decided to hand all of it over to the oil companies. ... We can drill every last acre of wilderness, and it won't make us any more secure. We only have 3 percent of the world's oil, and the Middle East has 66 percent. Do the math. We can't drill our way to energy independence."
What a good joke.
Friday, February 03, 2006
GANANCIAS
¿Han alguno de ustedes visto las ganancias de las petroleras?
Exxon y Shell están a la cabeza con ganancias del orden de los 23 mil millones de dólares cada una. GANANCIAS. Sí, otra vez, GANANCIAS. Son gigantescas. Cada una de estas compañías es más grande en tamaño y volumen que países como Dinamarca o Bélgica. Y las ganancias no son malas en sí, todo mundo tiene derecho de hacerse rico, súperrico (no es albur). Pero los demás ¿no tenemos también derecho de respirar aire limpio?, ¿de vivir en un ambiente libre de toxinas, azufres, etc.?.
Los combustibles fósiles son los causantes de que la temperatura de la tierra aumente año tras año con todas esas consecuencias que eso conlleva. ¿No se verían mejor las compañías petroleras si en lugar de repartir todas esas ganancias a sus accionistas invirtieran una pequeña parte en el desarrollo de fuentes alternativas de energía?
Es pregunta
Exxon y Shell están a la cabeza con ganancias del orden de los 23 mil millones de dólares cada una. GANANCIAS. Sí, otra vez, GANANCIAS. Son gigantescas. Cada una de estas compañías es más grande en tamaño y volumen que países como Dinamarca o Bélgica. Y las ganancias no son malas en sí, todo mundo tiene derecho de hacerse rico, súperrico (no es albur). Pero los demás ¿no tenemos también derecho de respirar aire limpio?, ¿de vivir en un ambiente libre de toxinas, azufres, etc.?.
Los combustibles fósiles son los causantes de que la temperatura de la tierra aumente año tras año con todas esas consecuencias que eso conlleva. ¿No se verían mejor las compañías petroleras si en lugar de repartir todas esas ganancias a sus accionistas invirtieran una pequeña parte en el desarrollo de fuentes alternativas de energía?
Es pregunta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)