New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Stanley Crouch: Freedom's tollFreedom's toll
America's dark history sheds light on future greatness
At this point, we have found out more than a few dark things about the American past and the nature of the men who put our great republic together. Some seem to think that the shortcomings of those great men reduce the meaning of the ideas and the impact that they had on the world. I am not one of those critics. There is a primary fact about human beings: great ideas can live and function independent of their source.
That is why it is no major observation to point out that .Thomas Jefferson and so many of the founders of this nation were slaveholders. That they were racists, like most of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, means little to us, though it meant much to all who had to live within the range of their social decisions.
I am not belittling the importance of slavery, the oppression of women, the war on the Indians or the vast dues paid by Mexicans and Asians over the course of our national history. I simply say that the long struggle to purify our social policies of bigotry and favoritism would not have been possible if the idea of a free society had not been put in place by the very men who today come under attack by purportedly "progressive" lightweights.
Thomas Jefferson did not have women or so-called minorities in mind when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. In fact, language that opposed slavery was excised to appease the slaveholders among the Founding Fathers. Even so, those ideas have rung throughout the world since they were written and remade the way in which modern people think about themselves.
Those ideas were not just floating around the world for anyone to pluck from the air. The ideas did not come from Asia, Africa, South America, or Australia - they once were Western. Those who want things to go the way they were in a world free of Western influence should look for something that will satisfy them. They will find slavery, the oppression of women, and the unblinking slaughter of minorities.
From what we can tell, human nature seems to express its fundamental survival instinct in xenophobia. American democracy is an argument against that, which is why every group has had to gain its human recognition in order to struggle for its basic rights. Spouting arguments about "human rights" that are derived from the Declaration of Independence, some will say they should never have had to struggle for anything, and that such unfairness should never exist. That and a few pennies will get you a first class ticket to dreamland.
We should all be proud and happy to live in the United States because ours is a history of increasing human recognition. We are forever moving against our limits and being forced to face our shortcomings. We remain within the orbit of those American dreams, like sword points, that keep pushing us beyond what Mr. Jefferson and his boys thought, but which would not be possible without them.
Originally published on July 3, 2005
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
The Huffington Post | The Blog
The Huffington Post | The Blog Lawrence O'Donnell
Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover
I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.
Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover
I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.
Daily Kos: True Patriots
Daily Kos: True Patriotsrue Patriots
by Hunter
Mon Jul 4th, 2005 at 13:04:49 PDT
Props to rioduran for reminding me of this 2004 Murray S. Wass piece (my emphases):
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October [2003] that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
This is one of the better summaries I've seen, and every time I do see one of these, it just floors me. Every time. I mean, think about it...
* Bush Administration ::
* ::
*
The fallback position of Rove and the other administration figures involved -- their defense against the crimes they are being investigated for -- is that yes, they did indeed shop Plame's covert status as widely as possible using the press, "conservative interest groups", and the RNC. But, their best argument goes, it wasn't technically illegal since "someone else" did the initial leak, so no harm, no foul.
In the end, I find this defense to be every bit as repulsive, felony or no. In the end, whether or not worse is proven does nothing to reduce the contemptibility of what is already known.
Remember, what Joe Wilson did was come forward to discredit a White House talking point that Iraq had been trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa -- a claim that was spurious then, and with further investigation fell completely apart. He even gave them warning first, and published an op-ed disputing the claims only after the White House continued to use them. For that, his wife became the target of a Bush Administration hit that spanned multiple agencies, was organized and executed by multiple top Bush advisors, and included coordinations with a variety of Republican interest groups.
How on earth did we reach the point, in this country, that a simple op-ed from a relatively unknown Ambassador require a White House orchestrated attack campaign of the level that the campaign against Valerie Plame apparently reached? Because CIA operative Plame, according to Rove and other Republicans, might have suggested her husband as an experienced candidate for the investigation?
That's it?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but so the fuck what? That was the all-impressive point of objection, the basis of a retaliatory movement that occupied the highest echelons of the Bush Administration? That?
How many Bush Administration officials were put on the case of making sure Valerie Plame was as "outed" as they could possibly arrange for? We know at least seven. Seven, tasked with leaking to contacts, calling reporters, or doing whatever else was necessary to attack Wilson by compromising his wife as fully, openly, and extensively as possible.
We know from Senate investigations that John Bolton, to give one specific example of an administration official, has a special obsession with the punishment of anyone -- agent, analyst, or foreign official -- who contradicted his "preferred" pre-Iraq War intelligence analysis. What we learn from the Plame case is that that wasn't unusual behavior. White House officials mobilized en masse to extract a particularly vicious punishment via the Plame outing. En masse. Whether it proves a felony or not, it is remarkable to think that the highest levels of government would take it so intimately upon themselves to destroy a single critic -- and that they would en masse think nothing of using leaked classified information as the centerpiece of a political hit.
At this point, nothing that happens in the Plame case will shock me. We already know the shocking part -- the level of attacks deemed acceptable and justifiable by Bush and his closest advisors.
This information has been known since 2003. At any point, Bush could have dismissed the culprits. Considering how many of them were involved, he'd have his work cut out for him in the restaffing department, but nonetheless it is transparently obvious what behaviors George W. Bush finds acceptable. What movements, among his staff, he rewards.
On this Fourth of July, I have to say -- my mind is mostly preoccupied with the character of the men chosen to lead this country. I thought Reagan a foolish but surprisingly effective figurehead; I knew George Bush 41 was neither. Nixon himself, for all his paranoia and viciousness, did occasional good. For all their faults, as much as I disagreed with them on much of substance and principle, I could begrudgingly respect each of them.
But for George W. Bush, there seems no agenda other than personal aggrandizement, and there seems no behavior that is unacceptable, so long as it treads defensibly just barely on the right side of technically probably not illegal. He is not a man in whom I can see the slightest hint of contemplation or cleverness. He is divisive for the sheer sake of division; he is vindictive, and petty, and from his public appearances a coward.
Helen Thomas caused a stir -- and provoked child-like retaliations -- when she opined George W. Bush to be the worst of modern Presidents. I can think of no counterexamples to prove her wrong.
It is important to remember, in all of this; Joseph Wilson, and his wife, were attacked simply because Wilson was right. The link between Iraq and Niger has been disproven; even the White House has confirmed that. Wilson's wife was attacked for the simple reason that the White House itself found her husband important to attack. And to attack this one family, this one act of factual dissent, the Bush Administration engaged the attentions of numerous government officials, a variety of Republican political entities, and all the press contacts they could muster.
Our country is better than these men. Felony or no, I am ashamed of them. And that shame represents a deeper patriotism than a hundred tattered flags waving from car antennae.
by Hunter
Mon Jul 4th, 2005 at 13:04:49 PDT
Props to rioduran for reminding me of this 2004 Murray S. Wass piece (my emphases):
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October [2003] that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
This is one of the better summaries I've seen, and every time I do see one of these, it just floors me. Every time. I mean, think about it...
* Bush Administration ::
* ::
*
The fallback position of Rove and the other administration figures involved -- their defense against the crimes they are being investigated for -- is that yes, they did indeed shop Plame's covert status as widely as possible using the press, "conservative interest groups", and the RNC. But, their best argument goes, it wasn't technically illegal since "someone else" did the initial leak, so no harm, no foul.
In the end, I find this defense to be every bit as repulsive, felony or no. In the end, whether or not worse is proven does nothing to reduce the contemptibility of what is already known.
Remember, what Joe Wilson did was come forward to discredit a White House talking point that Iraq had been trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa -- a claim that was spurious then, and with further investigation fell completely apart. He even gave them warning first, and published an op-ed disputing the claims only after the White House continued to use them. For that, his wife became the target of a Bush Administration hit that spanned multiple agencies, was organized and executed by multiple top Bush advisors, and included coordinations with a variety of Republican interest groups.
How on earth did we reach the point, in this country, that a simple op-ed from a relatively unknown Ambassador require a White House orchestrated attack campaign of the level that the campaign against Valerie Plame apparently reached? Because CIA operative Plame, according to Rove and other Republicans, might have suggested her husband as an experienced candidate for the investigation?
That's it?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but so the fuck what? That was the all-impressive point of objection, the basis of a retaliatory movement that occupied the highest echelons of the Bush Administration? That?
How many Bush Administration officials were put on the case of making sure Valerie Plame was as "outed" as they could possibly arrange for? We know at least seven. Seven, tasked with leaking to contacts, calling reporters, or doing whatever else was necessary to attack Wilson by compromising his wife as fully, openly, and extensively as possible.
We know from Senate investigations that John Bolton, to give one specific example of an administration official, has a special obsession with the punishment of anyone -- agent, analyst, or foreign official -- who contradicted his "preferred" pre-Iraq War intelligence analysis. What we learn from the Plame case is that that wasn't unusual behavior. White House officials mobilized en masse to extract a particularly vicious punishment via the Plame outing. En masse. Whether it proves a felony or not, it is remarkable to think that the highest levels of government would take it so intimately upon themselves to destroy a single critic -- and that they would en masse think nothing of using leaked classified information as the centerpiece of a political hit.
At this point, nothing that happens in the Plame case will shock me. We already know the shocking part -- the level of attacks deemed acceptable and justifiable by Bush and his closest advisors.
This information has been known since 2003. At any point, Bush could have dismissed the culprits. Considering how many of them were involved, he'd have his work cut out for him in the restaffing department, but nonetheless it is transparently obvious what behaviors George W. Bush finds acceptable. What movements, among his staff, he rewards.
On this Fourth of July, I have to say -- my mind is mostly preoccupied with the character of the men chosen to lead this country. I thought Reagan a foolish but surprisingly effective figurehead; I knew George Bush 41 was neither. Nixon himself, for all his paranoia and viciousness, did occasional good. For all their faults, as much as I disagreed with them on much of substance and principle, I could begrudgingly respect each of them.
But for George W. Bush, there seems no agenda other than personal aggrandizement, and there seems no behavior that is unacceptable, so long as it treads defensibly just barely on the right side of technically probably not illegal. He is not a man in whom I can see the slightest hint of contemplation or cleverness. He is divisive for the sheer sake of division; he is vindictive, and petty, and from his public appearances a coward.
Helen Thomas caused a stir -- and provoked child-like retaliations -- when she opined George W. Bush to be the worst of modern Presidents. I can think of no counterexamples to prove her wrong.
It is important to remember, in all of this; Joseph Wilson, and his wife, were attacked simply because Wilson was right. The link between Iraq and Niger has been disproven; even the White House has confirmed that. Wilson's wife was attacked for the simple reason that the White House itself found her husband important to attack. And to attack this one family, this one act of factual dissent, the Bush Administration engaged the attentions of numerous government officials, a variety of Republican political entities, and all the press contacts they could muster.
Our country is better than these men. Felony or no, I am ashamed of them. And that shame represents a deeper patriotism than a hundred tattered flags waving from car antennae.
AP Wire | 07/04/2005 | Sportview: Putter sabotages Woods at Open
AP Wire | 07/04/2005 | Sportview: Putter sabotages Woods at Open Posted on Mon, Jul. 04, 2005
Sportview: Putter sabotages Woods at Open
JIM LITKE
Associated Press
LEMONT, Ill. - Turns out everybody looking for the Kryptonite in Tiger Woods' bag the last few years was probably focused on the wrong club. It wasn't the longest stick in there sapping the strength of the world's best player, but likely the shortest one.
The putter sabotaged Woods again Sunday afternoon, and with it, his chances of stealing the Western Open from Jim Furyk. Losing a tournament that he's won three times already may not have crushed Woods' ego, but it can't have boosted his confidence with two weeks left before he tees it up at St. Andrews in the season's third major. Especially not after a three-putt on No. 17 at Pinehurst two weeks ago doomed him to a second-place finish behind Michael Campbell at the U.S. Open.
After he shot a 66 at Cog Hill to finish two strokes behind Furyk, someone asked Woods what part of his game he'd improve immediately if someone handed him a magic wand. He didn't hesitate.
"Everything," he said. "Everything is key at the British Open. You have to drive it well and position your irons well."
More telling, though, was the 90 minutes Woods spent on the practice green Thursday evening after taking 29 putts en route to an opening-round 73 that left him dangling perilously close to the cut line.
Talk about paying immediate dividends: Woods vaulted back into the tournament Friday and Saturday, with nary a three-putt in either round. He began the final day five shots behind Furyk, but a birdie-birdie-eagle binge on Nos. 9-11 pushed him to 13-under and into the unlikely co-leader's spot for all of 10 minutes.
Then, Furyk rolled in a second birdie of his own at the 11th, plowed in a third straight at No. 12, right about the same time that Woods three-putted the 13th - and the tournament was effectively over.
"This year," Woods said afterward, "either I'm putting great or I'm struggling. Nothing in between. Either I'm rolling them in from everywhere or I'm three-putting."
That's hardly news, but neither is it the exaggeration it might sound like. Woods has wrestled with his driver since he exploded on Southern California's loaded junior amateur circuit, and for all his awesome power, the plain fact is that he's never been precise. For all the fuss that's been raised about his wildness off the tee, the most telling numbers have always been those he's rolled up on the greens.
Last year, for example, Woods ranked ninth on the PGA Tour in distance, averaging 302 yards, but 182nd in accuracy, finding the fairway just 56 percent of the time. He offset much of that wildness by finishing second in putting average, and really limited the damage by taking just 23 three-putts all season.
Coming into the Western, though, Woods already had 20 three-putts this season. He chalked up No. 21 on Thursday, but after the lengthy practice session, appeared to have put the problem behind him. Then came Sunday. With Furyk playing in the twosome behind him and applying pressure most of the way around, Woods three-putted Nos. 6 and 13 for bogeys. That saddled him with 23 this season - as many as he had all last year.
To top it off, Woods made a third bogey by leaving a sand shot in the bunker at No. 14. That many mistakes in the final round made Woods seem more like a flinching Tiger than a crouching one. Either way, it caught Furyk off-guard.
"I would say it surprised me," he said, "because he's such a good player. That's one negative of being the best. Everyone expects you to be perfect. If he makes a mistake, it sticks out more than anyone else. People pay notice to it. People will mention it to him. He has to relive those moments a little more critically than everyone else, because the spotlight is on him."
That was apparent when someone asked Woods about the number of three-putts this season versus last. He didn't even wait to hear the entire question.
"I knew that," Woods said.
"It's speed," he continued. "You're not going to misread a putt by 8 feet. If anything, you're going to have poor speed. Poor speed always leads to three putts, not misreads."
Conventional wisdom is that pro golfers are so close in the skills necessary to play the game that each week comes down to a putting contest. By spending more hours at the gym, visiting their sports psychologists religiously and applying every bit of technology that club and ball manufacturers have developed in recent years, the pack chasing Woods neutralized his distance advantage.
None is his equal yet in the mental-toughness department. But it's clear that Woods can't will the ball into the hole every time he needs to - and certainly not the way it seemed he could once. Spraying tee shots all around the grounds has made Woods seem beatable. But the golfers trying to do just that know Woods is never more vulnerable than when he's wrestling with a balky putter.
"He's human," Furyk said a second time. "Sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but he's human."
Jim Litke is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jlitke@ap.org
Sportview: Putter sabotages Woods at Open
JIM LITKE
Associated Press
LEMONT, Ill. - Turns out everybody looking for the Kryptonite in Tiger Woods' bag the last few years was probably focused on the wrong club. It wasn't the longest stick in there sapping the strength of the world's best player, but likely the shortest one.
The putter sabotaged Woods again Sunday afternoon, and with it, his chances of stealing the Western Open from Jim Furyk. Losing a tournament that he's won three times already may not have crushed Woods' ego, but it can't have boosted his confidence with two weeks left before he tees it up at St. Andrews in the season's third major. Especially not after a three-putt on No. 17 at Pinehurst two weeks ago doomed him to a second-place finish behind Michael Campbell at the U.S. Open.
After he shot a 66 at Cog Hill to finish two strokes behind Furyk, someone asked Woods what part of his game he'd improve immediately if someone handed him a magic wand. He didn't hesitate.
"Everything," he said. "Everything is key at the British Open. You have to drive it well and position your irons well."
More telling, though, was the 90 minutes Woods spent on the practice green Thursday evening after taking 29 putts en route to an opening-round 73 that left him dangling perilously close to the cut line.
Talk about paying immediate dividends: Woods vaulted back into the tournament Friday and Saturday, with nary a three-putt in either round. He began the final day five shots behind Furyk, but a birdie-birdie-eagle binge on Nos. 9-11 pushed him to 13-under and into the unlikely co-leader's spot for all of 10 minutes.
Then, Furyk rolled in a second birdie of his own at the 11th, plowed in a third straight at No. 12, right about the same time that Woods three-putted the 13th - and the tournament was effectively over.
"This year," Woods said afterward, "either I'm putting great or I'm struggling. Nothing in between. Either I'm rolling them in from everywhere or I'm three-putting."
That's hardly news, but neither is it the exaggeration it might sound like. Woods has wrestled with his driver since he exploded on Southern California's loaded junior amateur circuit, and for all his awesome power, the plain fact is that he's never been precise. For all the fuss that's been raised about his wildness off the tee, the most telling numbers have always been those he's rolled up on the greens.
Last year, for example, Woods ranked ninth on the PGA Tour in distance, averaging 302 yards, but 182nd in accuracy, finding the fairway just 56 percent of the time. He offset much of that wildness by finishing second in putting average, and really limited the damage by taking just 23 three-putts all season.
Coming into the Western, though, Woods already had 20 three-putts this season. He chalked up No. 21 on Thursday, but after the lengthy practice session, appeared to have put the problem behind him. Then came Sunday. With Furyk playing in the twosome behind him and applying pressure most of the way around, Woods three-putted Nos. 6 and 13 for bogeys. That saddled him with 23 this season - as many as he had all last year.
To top it off, Woods made a third bogey by leaving a sand shot in the bunker at No. 14. That many mistakes in the final round made Woods seem more like a flinching Tiger than a crouching one. Either way, it caught Furyk off-guard.
"I would say it surprised me," he said, "because he's such a good player. That's one negative of being the best. Everyone expects you to be perfect. If he makes a mistake, it sticks out more than anyone else. People pay notice to it. People will mention it to him. He has to relive those moments a little more critically than everyone else, because the spotlight is on him."
That was apparent when someone asked Woods about the number of three-putts this season versus last. He didn't even wait to hear the entire question.
"I knew that," Woods said.
"It's speed," he continued. "You're not going to misread a putt by 8 feet. If anything, you're going to have poor speed. Poor speed always leads to three putts, not misreads."
Conventional wisdom is that pro golfers are so close in the skills necessary to play the game that each week comes down to a putting contest. By spending more hours at the gym, visiting their sports psychologists religiously and applying every bit of technology that club and ball manufacturers have developed in recent years, the pack chasing Woods neutralized his distance advantage.
None is his equal yet in the mental-toughness department. But it's clear that Woods can't will the ball into the hole every time he needs to - and certainly not the way it seemed he could once. Spraying tee shots all around the grounds has made Woods seem beatable. But the golfers trying to do just that know Woods is never more vulnerable than when he's wrestling with a balky putter.
"He's human," Furyk said a second time. "Sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but he's human."
Jim Litke is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jlitke@ap.org
A Different New York - New York Times
A Different New York - New York Times The New York Times
July 4, 2005
A Different New York
By BOB HERBERT
Yes, it was a hateful crime. And, yes, it happened in the Howard Beach section of Queens. But, no, this is not déjà vu.
Early last Wednesday a neighborhood nitwit named Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci pummeled a fellow named Glenn Moore with a metal baseball bat, police said. Mr. Moore was walking around Howard Beach with a couple of friends. What they were up to is not real clear and not particularly relevant. Maybe they were doing some 3 a.m. sightseeing. At least one is reported to have said he was looking for a car to steal.
In any event, Mr. Moore and his friends, who are black, ended up being chased by Fat Nick and a couple of his friends, who are white. When Mr. Moore tripped and fell, Fat Nick, according to the police, whaled on him with the bat, leaving him with a fractured skull.
The beating allegedly was accompanied by racial slurs. And some of Mr. Moore's belongings were stolen.
As bad as this incident was, it would never have risen to the status of a major news story in a city of eight million people except for the fact that it happened in Howard Beach, a nearly all-white residential area near Kennedy Airport. Howard Beach has never lived down the notoriety that resulted from the hideous death in 1986 of Michael Griffith, one of three black men who were stranded in the neighborhood after their car broke down. They were attacked by a gang of white youths who were enraged by their mere presence.
Mr. Griffith was struck by a car and killed as he ran onto a highway in an effort to flee the gang.
That incident ignited a prolonged period of turmoil that severely aggravated the already raw nerves of race relations in the city. Public officials, including the Queens district attorney, John Santucci, clashed openly with lawyers for the surviving victims. Eventually a special state prosecutor, Charles Hynes, who is now the Brooklyn district attorney, was named to handle the case.
That was New York then, when subway fares were a dollar, crime was out of control, and Gimbels was bidding the world adieu.
The city is a different and a better place these days. Mayor Michael Bloomberg could not have responded faster to last week's attack if he had been wearing Rollerblades. "I cannot stress it enough," he said. "We are going to live together, and nobody, nobody, should ever feel that they will be attacked because of their ethnicity, their orientation, their religion, where they live, their documented status, or anything else. Period. End of story."
The police moved just as fast. They quickly arrested Mr. Minucci, who is 19 and addicted to a gangster wannabe lifestyle. (He drives a $60,000 Cadillac S.U.V. and likes to cruise around flashing gold necklaces, Rolexes and other expensive bling.) The attack was deemed a hate crime, and Mr. Minucci was charged with first-degree assault. An alleged accomplice, Anthony Ench, 21, was also arrested, and a third man is being questioned.
The current Queens district attorney, Richard Brown, made it clear that anyone charged in the case would be vigorously prosecuted. And the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was the point person for the protests in the first Howard Beach case, praised the way the mayor, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and other officials have taken control of this one.
A singular development in New York over the past several years, accelerated by the terrible experience of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a willingness to move beyond the chronic ethnic conflict and divisiveness of previous eras. People in and out of government have worked hard to address problems in constructive ways.
We may not be approaching nirvana, and Howard Beach can hardly be characterized as a haven of racial tolerance. But there are very few New Yorkers interested in revisiting the searing ethnic face-offs of the past.
Mr. Sharpton, who had lunch with several public officials in Howard Beach on Friday, said that "the tone of the city has changed - as I have changed" in 19 years and that this incident should not be allowed to spiral out of control or overshadow the substantial progress the city has made.
He said he was concerned about the attack, which is why he went to Howard Beach. But he pointedly noted, "We're not fighting for the right to steal cars."
A crime was committed in Howard Beach. The wisest response would be to investigate, prosecute and move on.
July 4, 2005
A Different New York
By BOB HERBERT
Yes, it was a hateful crime. And, yes, it happened in the Howard Beach section of Queens. But, no, this is not déjà vu.
Early last Wednesday a neighborhood nitwit named Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci pummeled a fellow named Glenn Moore with a metal baseball bat, police said. Mr. Moore was walking around Howard Beach with a couple of friends. What they were up to is not real clear and not particularly relevant. Maybe they were doing some 3 a.m. sightseeing. At least one is reported to have said he was looking for a car to steal.
In any event, Mr. Moore and his friends, who are black, ended up being chased by Fat Nick and a couple of his friends, who are white. When Mr. Moore tripped and fell, Fat Nick, according to the police, whaled on him with the bat, leaving him with a fractured skull.
The beating allegedly was accompanied by racial slurs. And some of Mr. Moore's belongings were stolen.
As bad as this incident was, it would never have risen to the status of a major news story in a city of eight million people except for the fact that it happened in Howard Beach, a nearly all-white residential area near Kennedy Airport. Howard Beach has never lived down the notoriety that resulted from the hideous death in 1986 of Michael Griffith, one of three black men who were stranded in the neighborhood after their car broke down. They were attacked by a gang of white youths who were enraged by their mere presence.
Mr. Griffith was struck by a car and killed as he ran onto a highway in an effort to flee the gang.
That incident ignited a prolonged period of turmoil that severely aggravated the already raw nerves of race relations in the city. Public officials, including the Queens district attorney, John Santucci, clashed openly with lawyers for the surviving victims. Eventually a special state prosecutor, Charles Hynes, who is now the Brooklyn district attorney, was named to handle the case.
That was New York then, when subway fares were a dollar, crime was out of control, and Gimbels was bidding the world adieu.
The city is a different and a better place these days. Mayor Michael Bloomberg could not have responded faster to last week's attack if he had been wearing Rollerblades. "I cannot stress it enough," he said. "We are going to live together, and nobody, nobody, should ever feel that they will be attacked because of their ethnicity, their orientation, their religion, where they live, their documented status, or anything else. Period. End of story."
The police moved just as fast. They quickly arrested Mr. Minucci, who is 19 and addicted to a gangster wannabe lifestyle. (He drives a $60,000 Cadillac S.U.V. and likes to cruise around flashing gold necklaces, Rolexes and other expensive bling.) The attack was deemed a hate crime, and Mr. Minucci was charged with first-degree assault. An alleged accomplice, Anthony Ench, 21, was also arrested, and a third man is being questioned.
The current Queens district attorney, Richard Brown, made it clear that anyone charged in the case would be vigorously prosecuted. And the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was the point person for the protests in the first Howard Beach case, praised the way the mayor, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and other officials have taken control of this one.
A singular development in New York over the past several years, accelerated by the terrible experience of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a willingness to move beyond the chronic ethnic conflict and divisiveness of previous eras. People in and out of government have worked hard to address problems in constructive ways.
We may not be approaching nirvana, and Howard Beach can hardly be characterized as a haven of racial tolerance. But there are very few New Yorkers interested in revisiting the searing ethnic face-offs of the past.
Mr. Sharpton, who had lunch with several public officials in Howard Beach on Friday, said that "the tone of the city has changed - as I have changed" in 19 years and that this incident should not be allowed to spiral out of control or overshadow the substantial progress the city has made.
He said he was concerned about the attack, which is why he went to Howard Beach. But he pointedly noted, "We're not fighting for the right to steal cars."
A crime was committed in Howard Beach. The wisest response would be to investigate, prosecute and move on.
RedNova News - Science - No Good Reason to Block China's Purchase of Unocal
RedNova News - Science - No Good Reason to Block China's Purchase of Unocal No Good Reason to Block China's Purchase of Unocal
Some people fear the economic threat from China. Others fret about expensive oil. With the skill of an accomplished arsonist, China has now poured gas on the flames of these separate anxieties, turning two medium-size fires into a single inferno.
The arson takes the form of a bid by a largely state-owned Chinese oil company for California-based Unocal. Until Wednesday, Unocal was heading into the arms of Chevron, which had made a friendly takeover offer. But China National Offshore Oil Corp. is offering a premium for Unocal's assets, triggering a fight over whether the federal government should block it on national security grounds.
The Unocal bid brings China one step closer to stirring up the sort of full-blown protectionist fury that confronted Japan two decades ago. Critics were already anxious about China's global strength in low-end manufacturing, its allegedly manipulative currency policy and its piracy of U.S. intellectual property. Now they can also worry about China's acquisition of U.S. companies. Last year a Chinese firm took over IBM's personal computer business, and now another one is bidding for Maytag, which makes household machines including Hoovers. The Unocal bid, at $18.5 billion, would be the biggest Chinese deal so far.
Does it matter if China owns U.S. companies? Japan went on a corporate spending spree in the 1980s, and the chief victims were not Americans, as the protectionists predicted, but the Japanese themselves. The Japanese paid inflated prices for Hollywood studios and landmark New York buildings. The exiting American owners made off with a nice profit. The Japanese got burned.
The Unocal bid has triggered the same muddled complaining that attended those Japanese takeovers. The protectionists say the Chinese want to pay for Unocal with cheap loans from their taxpayers, just as Japanese corporations were once denounced for accessing cheap capital from servile banks. But this means that China's taxpayers are offering sure profits to Unocal's shareholders. Admittedly, it also means that Chevron's shareholders stand to forgo a business opportunity, but then that opportunity might not have paid off. From the view of U.S. economic interests, this is a net plus.
Equally, the protectionists say that if the Unocal bid is allowed to go forward, the Chinese will use the power of corporate ownership to manipulate oil prices; worse, China could even blackmail America by withholding energy supply. This echoes old fears of Japanese semiconductor makers, which were said to be plotting sinister dominance of the memory-chip business in the 1980s. As the protectionists explained it, the Japanese plan was to destroy U.S. rivals by undercutting their prices, then later to ramp up their own prices and hold U.S. industry (including the defense industry) for ransom.
But the protectionist fears are based on a misunderstanding of markets, which are harder to corner or manipulate than people seem to understand. Japan's assault on the memory-chip market never did produce the feared lock on this product. Instead, U.S. chipmakers prospered by moving upscale from plain memory chips to fancy microprocessors, and the supposedly oligopolistic Japanese memory- chip firms were soon challenged by South Korean rivals.
Does China's advance on the oil market threaten American interests more acutely? It's true that oil is a political commodity: Saudi Arabia and other big producers use their power over the oil price as a diplomatic lever. China, for its part, has a clear policy of buying up oil fields to boost its energy security. Since foreigners aren't taking a free-market view of the oil business, it may seem naive for the United States to do so -- especially when oil prices are around $60 a barrel.
Yet it's hard to paint a plausible scenario in which Chinese control of Unocal would hurt us -- despite loud exclamations to the contrary from Congress. For one thing, Unocal's oil output accounts for a tiny fraction of U.S. consumption. The firm's chief asset is undeveloped natural gas in Indonesia that's going to take at least five years to develop -- by which time the current tightness in the energy market will probably have dissipated because of the development of new oil fields.
But there's a more fundamental objection to the protectionist anxiety. The protectionists worry that China will ship all of Unocal's output home to its own industries, thus hogging scarce oil supplies and taking them "offline." Even if this were possible, it wouldn't matter: Unocal's oil and gas would be meeting Chinese demand that would otherwise have to be met by Chinese purchases on world markets. In other words, China would be reducing both the supply and the demand for energy in the open market. Prices paid by American consumers wouldn't budge.
What if there were a real oil crisis? A simulation conducted last week in Washington suggested that a couple of middling terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Alaska would be enough to cause a global oil shortage, sending prices above $100 a barrel. Yet Chinese ownership of Unocal wouldn't affect this picture. China could respond to the crisis by routing Unocal's energy to its own industries. But again, oil is fungible, so this wouldn't matter.
You can see why this is not the dominant view in Congress. China is, after all, a communist dictatorship, and we shouldn't assume its intentions are friendly. Equally, the American oil addiction is a genuine problem, and we should strive to break our dependence on potentially unstable suppliers such as Saudi Arabia. But although the Unocal bid seems to yoke these twin problems together, the appearance is deceptive. If you look for a convincing reason to block China's bid for Unocal, you're not going to find one.
Sebastian Mallaby is a member of The Washington Post's editorial page staff.
Story from REDNOVA NEWS:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=161315
Published: 2005/07/03 12:00:47 CDT
Some people fear the economic threat from China. Others fret about expensive oil. With the skill of an accomplished arsonist, China has now poured gas on the flames of these separate anxieties, turning two medium-size fires into a single inferno.
The arson takes the form of a bid by a largely state-owned Chinese oil company for California-based Unocal. Until Wednesday, Unocal was heading into the arms of Chevron, which had made a friendly takeover offer. But China National Offshore Oil Corp. is offering a premium for Unocal's assets, triggering a fight over whether the federal government should block it on national security grounds.
The Unocal bid brings China one step closer to stirring up the sort of full-blown protectionist fury that confronted Japan two decades ago. Critics were already anxious about China's global strength in low-end manufacturing, its allegedly manipulative currency policy and its piracy of U.S. intellectual property. Now they can also worry about China's acquisition of U.S. companies. Last year a Chinese firm took over IBM's personal computer business, and now another one is bidding for Maytag, which makes household machines including Hoovers. The Unocal bid, at $18.5 billion, would be the biggest Chinese deal so far.
Does it matter if China owns U.S. companies? Japan went on a corporate spending spree in the 1980s, and the chief victims were not Americans, as the protectionists predicted, but the Japanese themselves. The Japanese paid inflated prices for Hollywood studios and landmark New York buildings. The exiting American owners made off with a nice profit. The Japanese got burned.
The Unocal bid has triggered the same muddled complaining that attended those Japanese takeovers. The protectionists say the Chinese want to pay for Unocal with cheap loans from their taxpayers, just as Japanese corporations were once denounced for accessing cheap capital from servile banks. But this means that China's taxpayers are offering sure profits to Unocal's shareholders. Admittedly, it also means that Chevron's shareholders stand to forgo a business opportunity, but then that opportunity might not have paid off. From the view of U.S. economic interests, this is a net plus.
Equally, the protectionists say that if the Unocal bid is allowed to go forward, the Chinese will use the power of corporate ownership to manipulate oil prices; worse, China could even blackmail America by withholding energy supply. This echoes old fears of Japanese semiconductor makers, which were said to be plotting sinister dominance of the memory-chip business in the 1980s. As the protectionists explained it, the Japanese plan was to destroy U.S. rivals by undercutting their prices, then later to ramp up their own prices and hold U.S. industry (including the defense industry) for ransom.
But the protectionist fears are based on a misunderstanding of markets, which are harder to corner or manipulate than people seem to understand. Japan's assault on the memory-chip market never did produce the feared lock on this product. Instead, U.S. chipmakers prospered by moving upscale from plain memory chips to fancy microprocessors, and the supposedly oligopolistic Japanese memory- chip firms were soon challenged by South Korean rivals.
Does China's advance on the oil market threaten American interests more acutely? It's true that oil is a political commodity: Saudi Arabia and other big producers use their power over the oil price as a diplomatic lever. China, for its part, has a clear policy of buying up oil fields to boost its energy security. Since foreigners aren't taking a free-market view of the oil business, it may seem naive for the United States to do so -- especially when oil prices are around $60 a barrel.
Yet it's hard to paint a plausible scenario in which Chinese control of Unocal would hurt us -- despite loud exclamations to the contrary from Congress. For one thing, Unocal's oil output accounts for a tiny fraction of U.S. consumption. The firm's chief asset is undeveloped natural gas in Indonesia that's going to take at least five years to develop -- by which time the current tightness in the energy market will probably have dissipated because of the development of new oil fields.
But there's a more fundamental objection to the protectionist anxiety. The protectionists worry that China will ship all of Unocal's output home to its own industries, thus hogging scarce oil supplies and taking them "offline." Even if this were possible, it wouldn't matter: Unocal's oil and gas would be meeting Chinese demand that would otherwise have to be met by Chinese purchases on world markets. In other words, China would be reducing both the supply and the demand for energy in the open market. Prices paid by American consumers wouldn't budge.
What if there were a real oil crisis? A simulation conducted last week in Washington suggested that a couple of middling terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Alaska would be enough to cause a global oil shortage, sending prices above $100 a barrel. Yet Chinese ownership of Unocal wouldn't affect this picture. China could respond to the crisis by routing Unocal's energy to its own industries. But again, oil is fungible, so this wouldn't matter.
You can see why this is not the dominant view in Congress. China is, after all, a communist dictatorship, and we shouldn't assume its intentions are friendly. Equally, the American oil addiction is a genuine problem, and we should strive to break our dependence on potentially unstable suppliers such as Saudi Arabia. But although the Unocal bid seems to yoke these twin problems together, the appearance is deceptive. If you look for a convincing reason to block China's bid for Unocal, you're not going to find one.
Sebastian Mallaby is a member of The Washington Post's editorial page staff.
Story from REDNOVA NEWS:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=161315
Published: 2005/07/03 12:00:47 CDT
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Some Blacks in Howard Beach See Acceptance, With Limits - New York Times
Some Blacks in Howard Beach See Acceptance, With Limits - New York TimesJuly 3, 2005
Some Blacks in Howard Beach See Acceptance, With Limits
By COREY KILGANNON
Once a staple of Queens, all-white neighborhoods have largely become a thing of the past. But they still exist, and the area known as New Howard Beach - where early Wednesday morning a black man was attacked by a white teenager wielding a baseball bat - is one of them.
The residents of the neighborhood, south of the Belt Parkway and west of Cross Bay Boulevard, are almost exclusively white, and its single-family homes are meticulously landscaped and adorned with ornate brickwork. Census figures from 2000 indicate that there are only eight black residents in that area, but during a search for them last week, dozens of local residents could point to only one home: a small house on 92nd Street where the Allen family has lived for four decades as the only black family, certainly in the surrounding blocks.
The Allen home is around the corner from New Park Pizza, where in 1986 a black man died after being chased by a group of white men onto a parkway. It is also around the corner from the Italian deli where Nicholas Minucci, the man accused in Wednesday's bat attack, told the police that his encounter with three black men began.
Frank Allen, 77, said he bought his house 40 years ago. He never considered race an issue then, and he still does not.
"The only black family? I never even thought about it," he said yesterday, speaking for about 45 minutes through his screen door.
Mr. Allen refused to be photographed, explaining that he did not think the issue was important. "What's the difference if someone is black, white or purple?" he said. "People live inside their houses and hardly see each other. We all salute the same flag."
He added, "When I moved into this house, all my neighbors were white, and 40 years later, they're still all white. So what?"
Raising his two sons in a good neighborhood allowed them to avoid trouble and succeed, he said. One is an optometrist and the other a city schoolteacher.
"My car sits here every day and nobody touches it," he said. "Go ask my neighbors what they think about me. Ask them why they never moved away."
Diana Rahner, who lives next door, called the Allens "great people" and said, "They're the only black family I know of in this neighborhood, but I've never heard anybody say anything bad about them."
But one of Mr. Allen's sons, the city schoolteacher, said that growing up black in Howard Beach had been very complicated for him, The son, who is 36, did not want his first name used because of problems it might cause at his job. He said that while things have gotten better, his parents told of rocks being thrown through their windows when they first moved in.
"We're an anomaly here," he said.
He recalled attending Public School 207 for elementary school and playing exclusively with white children. By the time he was at Junior High School 202, he said, some black students were bused in from Ozone Park. Instead of going to a local high school, he selected another one with more black and Hispanic students.
"Growing up, I never saw any other black kids living in Howard Beach," he said. "After sixth grade, my white friends began telling me their parents didn't want them hanging out with me. Either that, or their attitude toward me just changed. I think there's a lot of pressure on them as they get older. When you're young and playing Wiffle ball, it's one thing. But when you're old enough to start talking to girls here, things change."
His only lasting friendship, he said, had been with another boy from the neighborhood who was half Jamaican and half Puerto Rican. He said it was routine for groups of white men driving by in cars to shout a racial epithet at him. Once, when he was a teenager, he said, a white adult suspected him of stealing a bicycle and came after him with a golf club.
"He only stopped after my friend told him I live here," he said. "It was hard. I mean, there were advantages - I had good schools, no criminal record, no jail, no gangs - but it was hard to make friends."
The Lindenwood section of Howard Beach, where Mr. Minucci lives, lies to the northwest of New Howard Beach and is separated by the Belt Parkway. There are more multifamily homes and apartment buildings. It is also predominantly white and largely Italian, but there are more black and Hispanic residents than in New Howard Beach.
Wreema Hinton, 37, a black woman who lives in Lindenwood, said she lives in a co-op originally bought by her uncle in 1972.
"The sale was O.K.'d in advance, before they saw what color my uncle was," she said. "My neighbors are Jewish and Italian and they're great. As a black woman here, you don't get much friction, but get two black men together and people have problems with it."
She said she moved four years ago from Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, with her husband, Leon Williams, 42, a computer analyst. "He was nervous about moving here," she said. "He still won't come out with me to eat on Cross Bay Boulevard because he doesn't feel comfortable."
"If you go into the stores, you still get a funny feeling from people," she said. "Some things change, but they don't change, you know. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still here."
A black man, Afeez Alli-Balogun, 23, an operations analyst at a bank, stopped to talk. "If I'm in my suit and tie, I get treated one way," he said, "but if I'm dressed casual, I feel like they'd rather I not be in the store."
Joseph and Jasmine Ortiz, whose parents are from Puerto Rico, moved to Lindenwood from a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood five years ago "to try to get away from ignorance," Mr. Ortiz said.
Ms. Ortiz said: "The first year here was a little tough. I'd get looks like, 'What are you doing here?' But now people are nice."
Mr. Ortiz added, "I think people want to keep it a tight community here, so they want to make sure you're a decent person before letting you in."
Some Blacks in Howard Beach See Acceptance, With Limits
By COREY KILGANNON
Once a staple of Queens, all-white neighborhoods have largely become a thing of the past. But they still exist, and the area known as New Howard Beach - where early Wednesday morning a black man was attacked by a white teenager wielding a baseball bat - is one of them.
The residents of the neighborhood, south of the Belt Parkway and west of Cross Bay Boulevard, are almost exclusively white, and its single-family homes are meticulously landscaped and adorned with ornate brickwork. Census figures from 2000 indicate that there are only eight black residents in that area, but during a search for them last week, dozens of local residents could point to only one home: a small house on 92nd Street where the Allen family has lived for four decades as the only black family, certainly in the surrounding blocks.
The Allen home is around the corner from New Park Pizza, where in 1986 a black man died after being chased by a group of white men onto a parkway. It is also around the corner from the Italian deli where Nicholas Minucci, the man accused in Wednesday's bat attack, told the police that his encounter with three black men began.
Frank Allen, 77, said he bought his house 40 years ago. He never considered race an issue then, and he still does not.
"The only black family? I never even thought about it," he said yesterday, speaking for about 45 minutes through his screen door.
Mr. Allen refused to be photographed, explaining that he did not think the issue was important. "What's the difference if someone is black, white or purple?" he said. "People live inside their houses and hardly see each other. We all salute the same flag."
He added, "When I moved into this house, all my neighbors were white, and 40 years later, they're still all white. So what?"
Raising his two sons in a good neighborhood allowed them to avoid trouble and succeed, he said. One is an optometrist and the other a city schoolteacher.
"My car sits here every day and nobody touches it," he said. "Go ask my neighbors what they think about me. Ask them why they never moved away."
Diana Rahner, who lives next door, called the Allens "great people" and said, "They're the only black family I know of in this neighborhood, but I've never heard anybody say anything bad about them."
But one of Mr. Allen's sons, the city schoolteacher, said that growing up black in Howard Beach had been very complicated for him, The son, who is 36, did not want his first name used because of problems it might cause at his job. He said that while things have gotten better, his parents told of rocks being thrown through their windows when they first moved in.
"We're an anomaly here," he said.
He recalled attending Public School 207 for elementary school and playing exclusively with white children. By the time he was at Junior High School 202, he said, some black students were bused in from Ozone Park. Instead of going to a local high school, he selected another one with more black and Hispanic students.
"Growing up, I never saw any other black kids living in Howard Beach," he said. "After sixth grade, my white friends began telling me their parents didn't want them hanging out with me. Either that, or their attitude toward me just changed. I think there's a lot of pressure on them as they get older. When you're young and playing Wiffle ball, it's one thing. But when you're old enough to start talking to girls here, things change."
His only lasting friendship, he said, had been with another boy from the neighborhood who was half Jamaican and half Puerto Rican. He said it was routine for groups of white men driving by in cars to shout a racial epithet at him. Once, when he was a teenager, he said, a white adult suspected him of stealing a bicycle and came after him with a golf club.
"He only stopped after my friend told him I live here," he said. "It was hard. I mean, there were advantages - I had good schools, no criminal record, no jail, no gangs - but it was hard to make friends."
The Lindenwood section of Howard Beach, where Mr. Minucci lives, lies to the northwest of New Howard Beach and is separated by the Belt Parkway. There are more multifamily homes and apartment buildings. It is also predominantly white and largely Italian, but there are more black and Hispanic residents than in New Howard Beach.
Wreema Hinton, 37, a black woman who lives in Lindenwood, said she lives in a co-op originally bought by her uncle in 1972.
"The sale was O.K.'d in advance, before they saw what color my uncle was," she said. "My neighbors are Jewish and Italian and they're great. As a black woman here, you don't get much friction, but get two black men together and people have problems with it."
She said she moved four years ago from Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, with her husband, Leon Williams, 42, a computer analyst. "He was nervous about moving here," she said. "He still won't come out with me to eat on Cross Bay Boulevard because he doesn't feel comfortable."
"If you go into the stores, you still get a funny feeling from people," she said. "Some things change, but they don't change, you know. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still here."
A black man, Afeez Alli-Balogun, 23, an operations analyst at a bank, stopped to talk. "If I'm in my suit and tie, I get treated one way," he said, "but if I'm dressed casual, I feel like they'd rather I not be in the store."
Joseph and Jasmine Ortiz, whose parents are from Puerto Rico, moved to Lindenwood from a low-income Brooklyn neighborhood five years ago "to try to get away from ignorance," Mr. Ortiz said.
Ms. Ortiz said: "The first year here was a little tough. I'd get looks like, 'What are you doing here?' But now people are nice."
Mr. Ortiz added, "I think people want to keep it a tight community here, so they want to make sure you're a decent person before letting you in."
BBC NEWS | Business | China calls for Unocal bid review
BBC NEWS | Business | China calls for Unocal bid review China calls for Unocal bid review
Chinese oil giant CNOOC has asked a key US panel to review its proposed $18.5bn (£10bn) merger with oil and gas producer Unocal.
The bid is politically controversial and the firm hopes a review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) will advance its cause.
CNOOC, which has always said it wanted a review, said its voluntary request was aimed at clearing up doubts.
Some US politicians oppose CNOOC's bid on national security grounds.
On Thursday, the US House of Representatives voted to block the Bush administration from backing the deal. CNOOC's request is understood to have been made before the vote.
Security concerns?
CNOOC's bid trumps a $16.3bn cash and share offer for Unocal tabled by fellow US oil group Chevron but some US politicians have opposed the Chinese offer.
Political concerns centre both on America's $160bn trade deficit with China, whose economy is surging ahead, and Beijing's emerging political and military power.
CNOOC will now hope that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) - which considers proposed acquisitions of US firms by foreigners where national security might be a concern - will dispel misgivings about the deal.
The Xinhua news agency quoted a CNOOC spokesman on Saturday as saying: "It's a voluntary notice from CNOOC Ltd. We hope the review will be put onto formal proceedings of CFIUS as soon as possible as we are sure that the transaction is purely commercial."
"This filing gives CNOOC the opportunity to comply with all US rules and regulations in an open and transparent manner, and to fully discuss our proposal," the Xinhua news agency quoted Yang Hua, CNOOC's chief financial officer, as saying.
Chinese oil giant CNOOC has asked a key US panel to review its proposed $18.5bn (£10bn) merger with oil and gas producer Unocal.
The bid is politically controversial and the firm hopes a review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) will advance its cause.
CNOOC, which has always said it wanted a review, said its voluntary request was aimed at clearing up doubts.
Some US politicians oppose CNOOC's bid on national security grounds.
On Thursday, the US House of Representatives voted to block the Bush administration from backing the deal. CNOOC's request is understood to have been made before the vote.
Security concerns?
CNOOC's bid trumps a $16.3bn cash and share offer for Unocal tabled by fellow US oil group Chevron but some US politicians have opposed the Chinese offer.
Political concerns centre both on America's $160bn trade deficit with China, whose economy is surging ahead, and Beijing's emerging political and military power.
CNOOC will now hope that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) - which considers proposed acquisitions of US firms by foreigners where national security might be a concern - will dispel misgivings about the deal.
The Xinhua news agency quoted a CNOOC spokesman on Saturday as saying: "It's a voluntary notice from CNOOC Ltd. We hope the review will be put onto formal proceedings of CFIUS as soon as possible as we are sure that the transaction is purely commercial."
"This filing gives CNOOC the opportunity to comply with all US rules and regulations in an open and transparent manner, and to fully discuss our proposal," the Xinhua news agency quoted Yang Hua, CNOOC's chief financial officer, as saying.
China National News > US in no position to lecture China on greed for oil
US in no position to lecture China on greed for oileunice_chock@hotmail.com
News that China’s third-largest oil company, CNOOC, is trying to buy Unocal, the California-based oil company, for $18.5 billion, has produced predictable (and grandstanding) yelps from U.S. politicians warning of growing Chinese power over the U.S. economy. It has not, of course, aroused much American self-awareness about our self-induced economic problems.
The real significance of the Unocal bid is that China, like America, is desperate for oil. Further, the firm conveniently has considerable reserves in Asia. As the Middle Kingdom and other industrializing countries, especially India, grow, they will presumably need more and more oil.
What this means for the world oil market is ominous: The rate at which reserves will be used up is apt to be considerably faster than most people have anticipated, and the prices will presumably be much higher. Far fewer kicks on Route 66!
Meanwhile, we Americans continue to build barriers to alternative-energy sources, continue to use the world’s most energy-wasteful transport system, grossly overuse plastic (made from oil), and otherwise live as if $10-a-barrel petroleum will soon return and reign forever. But the idea that we can continue to use 25 percent of the world’s oil is a dream. There’s just too much competition for the stuff.
There are many reasons to complain about U.S. trade with China: China’s manipulation of currency, its massive intellectual-property theft, its lack of basic protections for low-wage and even (in some places) slave-labor workers, and its seeming nonchalance about pollution (though that’s to be expected in poor but industrializing nations).
Still, it’s hard to fault the Chinese for wanting to collect as much crude as they can. We’re in no position to give them lectures on the topic.
Robert Whitcomb is a writer for the Providence Journal.
News that China’s third-largest oil company, CNOOC, is trying to buy Unocal, the California-based oil company, for $18.5 billion, has produced predictable (and grandstanding) yelps from U.S. politicians warning of growing Chinese power over the U.S. economy. It has not, of course, aroused much American self-awareness about our self-induced economic problems.
The real significance of the Unocal bid is that China, like America, is desperate for oil. Further, the firm conveniently has considerable reserves in Asia. As the Middle Kingdom and other industrializing countries, especially India, grow, they will presumably need more and more oil.
What this means for the world oil market is ominous: The rate at which reserves will be used up is apt to be considerably faster than most people have anticipated, and the prices will presumably be much higher. Far fewer kicks on Route 66!
Meanwhile, we Americans continue to build barriers to alternative-energy sources, continue to use the world’s most energy-wasteful transport system, grossly overuse plastic (made from oil), and otherwise live as if $10-a-barrel petroleum will soon return and reign forever. But the idea that we can continue to use 25 percent of the world’s oil is a dream. There’s just too much competition for the stuff.
There are many reasons to complain about U.S. trade with China: China’s manipulation of currency, its massive intellectual-property theft, its lack of basic protections for low-wage and even (in some places) slave-labor workers, and its seeming nonchalance about pollution (though that’s to be expected in poor but industrializing nations).
Still, it’s hard to fault the Chinese for wanting to collect as much crude as they can. We’re in no position to give them lectures on the topic.
Robert Whitcomb is a writer for the Providence Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)