M Moore.

The good news is that I can only barf gumballs!

What comes out the other end, jawbreakers?

No. Superballs!

Special for hunin:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5463240.html

I should have known.

(snip)

We begin tonight with China's unprecedented attempt to seize control of one of this country's most important energy assets. China is aggressively pushing forward with a bid to buy one of the country's largest oil companies, Unocal. Unocal controls major oil and gas fields in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and, of course, Asia. Unocal also has key technologies that could be adapted for military use. A Chinese takeover of Unocal would follow China's purchase of IBM's personal computer business despite U.S. national security concerns.

Critics say China's overseas expansion is nothing less than a bold attempt to supersede the United States as the world's preeminent military and economic power. Tonight we'll be reporting on the many dimensions of this critically important story.

Kitty Pilgrim on the gaping holes in the government's review process for foreign takeover deals. Christine Romans on the scope of existing foreign ownership of our energy sector and our rising dependency. Bill Tucker on the key global energy assets that China seeks to control. And among my guests tonight, Richard D'Amato, chairman of the highly influential U.S.-China Security Review Commission on the need for the government to take action now in the national interest.

We begin with Kitty Pilgrim -- Kitty.

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, many in Congress are saying this cannot be treated as a normal business deal. It would be oil for the Chinese economy, oil for the military, and sensitive technology that could be used for defense. And the normal review process is not sufficient for something this important.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM (voice-over): Congressman Donald Manzullo and 40 other members of Congress wrote to President Bush and Treasure Secretary Snow for a full national security review of this deal.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO ®, ILLINOIS: This is the Chinese government itself that's buying the fifth largest energy company in the United States. I'd say that definitely warrants further review by the U.S. government.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't let this transaction be swept under a rug. And we need to really be looking at it carefully and demand that our political leaders do so as well.

PILGRIM: Secretary Snow was unwilling to take on the issue at a hearing last week, even though the Treasury secretary chairs the committee that handles the review. The Committee on Foreign Investment, or CFIUS, is supposed to look at deals that endanger national security. But that usually involves reviewing sensitive technology, not natural resources.

The review is also very quick, usually 30 days. Even an extended investigation is only 45 days.

Bob Ney of Ohio wrote a letter asking for the Committee on Foreign Investment to expand their role and look at natural resources for the first time as a security issue. "To this end, I am requesting that you exert the committee's ability to review and possibly suspend or prohibit this attempted foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation."

In a letter to members of Congress today, the chairman of CNOOC, Fu Chengyu, clearly trying to dispel the outcry, saying they planned all along to participate in a review, adding, "We know this bid is historic for both companies and will be closely scrutinized by everyone involved. I know this transaction would create great interest and debate."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now, Congress's intent, that this not be linked to other issues like currency or general trade with China. They fear if it is, it will slide by in the interest of not creating a sore point with the Chinese. But this is not business as usual. And national security is too big an issue to ignore -- Lou.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much. Astoundingly, the Bush administration appears resigned rather than outraged by China's blatant grab for U.S. oil interests. An unnamed adviser to President Bush tells "The New York Times," anonymously, "We have so much on the plate with China, how do you come down hard on them for this deal?"

And an unnamed State Department official told us today that, overall, the U.S. welcomes foreign investment. The official said, "It is important to work with China on the role they play and help them manage their economic decision-making in ways that maximize the way forward for all."

Despite the serious questions that this deal raises for U.S. national and economic security, State Department spokesperson Steven Pike says the Treasury Department is taking the lead on this issue in the Bush White House. Treasury Secretary John Snow had a chance to show his concern about the security implications of the Unocal bid at a Senate hearing last week. And the Treasury secretary refused in this exchange with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: Do you intend to review the Chinese bid to buy Unocal? And what is your initial read of this particular bid?

JOHN SNOW, TREASURY SECRETARY: Well, Senator, of course the Exxon-Florio process provides -- provides for the national security review that you -- that you alluded to, where a foreign company acquires a U.S. company. It's hypothetical at this point, though, because we don't have a transaction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: And at the same Senate hearing, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan also declined to take on the issue, saying he sees China's rush to compete with the United States not as a security threat, but as a bold move toward capitalism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN GREENSPAN, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: You're getting a former communist system which is still politically a communist system, recognizing that market capitalism is where they want to be, which is an extraordinary change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: An extraordinary change, but it is important to note that CNOOC is -- the Chinese oil company -- 70 percent owned by the Chinese government. Perhaps the Fed chairman did not notice that.

Meantime, some in the investment community want to blame the United States for this deal. Billionaire investor Warren Buffet says, "If we're going to consume more than we produce, we have to expect to give away a little part of the country." And "The Wall Street Journal" said this in an editorial: "We can envision some Chinese acquisitions that might deserve to be blocked, but the bar ought to be high and limited to serious security issues. The assets of a publicly traded energy company don't meet that test. The fact that a Chinese oil company wants to buy American is a sign of progress, not concern."

We also talked with several business groups and think tanks in Washington to find out their position on China's aggressive bid for Unocal. The majority, by far the majority, has no official position at all. The groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the Business Roundtable, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. In fact, the only group to take a position is The Heritage Foundation, and they are opposed to the deal for issues of national security.

China's controversial bid to buy Unocal is also raising some uncomfortable questions obviously at the White House. Today a reporter asked the White House press secretary how the president felt about the Chinese hiring a public relations firm which is partly owned by one of the president's top campaign advisers.

The White House reiterated that the deal was being reviewed by the Treasury Department. But he avoided the question about CNOOC's ties to the White House.

Here, then, are the facts.

The Chinese oil company hired a public relations firm, Public Strategies, Inc. It's based in Austin, Texas, which has close ties to the White House.

[b]Mark McKinnon, the vice chairman of that company, led President Bush's media campaign in 2004. McKinnon also prepped the president for his debates. CNOOC also acquired the services of Mark Palmer, the company's managing director who formally served as the public relations director for Enron.

Well, foreign companies already have a significant presence, of course, in the U.S. energy industry. But a Chinese takeover of Unocal would give communist China control of key U.S. oil and gas assets for the first time ever.

Christine Romans reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Amoco, now owned by British Petroleum. Shell, now Royal Dutch Shell. In fact, foreign ownership of critical American energy assets has now reached 13 percent of oil and gas production, 12 percent of domestic natural gas production, and almost 30 percent of domestic refining.

Citgo is controlled by Venezuela. And the Saudis operate through joint ventures here as well. Russia's Lukoil now operates gas stations. But many fear China's intentions are far more threatening. ROBIN WEST, PFC ENERGY: You have companies like BP and Shell, then you have these government companies, such as Saudi Aramco or Petroleos de Venezuela. They have invested billions of dollars in refineries in the United States, but what they want to do is they want to be assured of access for their crude oil in the U.S. market.

They were bringing oil to the U.S. This clearly benefits the United States.

ROMANS: In the U.S., China would control oil pipelines and gas storage across North America, key assets in Alaska's Cook Inlet and North Slope. And most concerning, technology for Alaskan oil production and deep sea drilling that could have military applications. Giving the communist government of China such a strategic asset would be a mistake.

GAL LUFT, INSTITUTE FOR ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY: We need to decide whether we are willing to commit economic suicide in the outer (ph) of free trade. You know, in this country, free trade has become sacrosanct. Everybody is very averse to protectionism. We feel that our role in the world is to proliferate free trade, and, you know, sometimes we need to draw a line.

ROMANS: Still, others are relatively unconcerned.

PAVEL MOLCHANOV, RAYMOND JAMES: You know, I think that China at this point is -- while it is governed by the communist party, indeed, it is very much a capitalist society. It has been for over 20 years now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: But China takes a much longer view of what makes economic sense. This is a country, Lou, that has an unwavering commitment to the national Chinese agenda.

DOBBS: And the national interest in this country is not always clearly in focus on the part of our policymakers. Christine, thank you. Christine Romans.

In the oil market today, new concerns about the supply of oil. Oil futures, in fact, closed at a record high in New York. The closing price, $60.54, an all-time high.

There's also been a huge run-up in gasoline prices. The Lundberg Survey showing average gasoline prices rising to $2.21 over the past two weeks, an increase of 8 cents -- 8 cents short of the all-time record.

A successful Chinese takeover of Unocal would turn CNOOC into a major force in the international oil business, a deal that would give China access to critically important oil reserveness in this country, Asia, and other parts of the world.

Bill Tucker has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): China promises that any American-produced oil and natural gas will stay in America. It's an easy promise to make. Only one-third of Unocal's reserves are in the United States and Canada. California-based Unocal's more important reserves to China are in Brazil, the Netherlands, the Congo, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam.

CLYDE PRESTOWITZ, ECONOMIC STRATEGY INSTITUTE: The Chinese are obsessed with long-term energy security, and assuring that. And they're making investments all over the world in companies and in oilfields. And this is part of that.

TUCKER: Almost 60 percent of Unocal's proven reserves are in Asia, in China's back yard. And the ball is just getting rolling.

FADEL GHEIT, OPPENHEIMER: China became an importer of oil only in the last three years from being an exporter of oil. And its energy and oil demand continues to increase very rapidly. And they definitely want to secure energy supply for their future economic growth.

TUCKER: This acquisition is also part of a greater strategy for China's rise as a global power. China wants the energy to run its factories, fuel its economy and finance its military.

AMB. JAMES LILLEY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Their oil policy is part of an overall policy of military buildup, acquisition of influence in the world, extending Chinese power.

TUCKER: Also a potential interest, Unocal's Molycorp division. It's a rare earth mineral mining company which provides essential minerals needed to make cell phones, computers and missile guidance systems.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: This is not likely to be China's last attempt at any energy acquisition. Years of record trade deficits have made the Chinese flush with U.S. dollars, as we've been talking about on this program for a while, Lou. And they have plenty to finance any deals they would like to make.

DOBBS: Yes, they do. In point of fact, one way to look at this deal is that the United States would have paid for this acquisition with one-tenth of our trade deficit with China from last year alone.






http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/27/ldt.01.html

Sorry to interrupt the cutsie show.

And now back to your regularly sheduled programming.

China just in general seems to be taking advantage of our present weakness--militarily overstretched, diplomatically isolated and bleeding red ink.

Methinks we really should've been more quiet about that "world's sole remaining superpower" stuff. It was an open invitation for the rest of the world to ally against us, in regional power blocs.

It was no secret from the start. China is acting like a capitalist nation run by authoritarian communists. The bad news is the people in charge, the good news is that even those state run global businesses are more profitable in a peaceful world.

Not to mention they are taking advantage of the decidedly unAmerican and anything but conservative and greedy AWOL "administration."

China is acting to secure its energy supplies just as we do. It makes sense to provide them access to legitimate means to do so, particularly in their own neighborhood.

They are also reacting to our assertion of American control of the ME oil, and our seeking control of Central Asian fields yet to be developed.

If it doesn’t make sense to permit China access to energy security in the normal course, then it doesn’t make sense for the US to lead the industrialization of China by supplying capital, management and technology, and retail US outlets for Chinese goods.

Hmmm.

Interesting.

Ya just gotta love it when a good plan comes together.

NY Times

... and when they say outsourcing, they are talking about places like Chicago and Orlando as well as overseas.

I'd be curious to see just how many jobs go to either Chicago or Orlando compared to actual, real outsourcing overseas..

I know the common, popular press has re-defined "outsourcing" to mean "off-shoring" but the reality of outsourcing has been around in the tech sector for a very long time. In fact there are very many niche companies in the tech sector that live solely on being the out-sourced technology provider to other larger companies. These companies would rather gain a specific technology's inclusion into their product via that method than to generate the in-house capability from scratch - when the cost of doing so would be less effective than to simply hire the existing experts.

Just FYI.

ahhh, now that you mention it I can see the difference. The correct terminology would be nice for accurate reporting.

I think we ought of "off shore”/outsource all our corporate CEO jobs to Japan. Their CEO class work for a fraction of what ours do, are more efficient and have this unusual thing about loyalty to stockholders and employees. Hell they even fall on their own sword if they eff up…Now that would be refreshing to see at a WorldCom, ENRON and the like.

My bro-in-law is currently in Japan. He was talking about the ex-pats there that were sent to start up foriegn offices, which were mostly highly successful. After that accomplishment most of them wanted to come back to America but were told there weren't any jobs here. I think he's worried the same thing will happen to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

While Japan's long-term economic prospects are considered good, Japan is currently in its worst recession since World War II. Sliding stock and real estate prices marked the end of the "bubble economy" of the late 1980s. Real GDP in Japan grew at an average of roughly 1% yearly between 1991-98, compared to growth in the 1980s of about 4% per year. Growth in Japan in this decade has been slower than growth in other major industrial nations, and the same as France and Germany. Japan endured periods of recession around the turn of the millennium, exacerbated by recession in the United States, but from 2003 began to grow strongly again, in 2004 enjoying the highest rate of growth since 1990. The projected OECD forecast for 2005 is a slower 1.5% growth rate.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/47d0d3a0-b60f-11d...000e2511c8.html

Japanese economy stuck in deflation
By David Pilling in Tokyo
Published: April 26 2005 06:26 | Last updated: April 26 2005 10:36

bank of japanConsumer prices fell for a seventh straight year in the 12 months to end-March 2005, confirming that the economy remains stuck in deflation in spite of three years of stop-start growth.

The decline in the core consumer price index, of 0.2 per cent, was far less severe than the 0.8 per cent of the previous two years.

The prices of everyday things there is unreal.

Well, it's getting better there then, in a manner of speaking.

Better for who? I'm not sure I like unreal prices. Real prices are bad enough.

Deflation is usually trouble. I was just being flip.

Deflation is a problem for future growth as the pros see it.

I don't know why people still act as if we should be awestruck by Japan and their business techniques. They were underestimated when they made nothing but transistors, then overestimated when they started making great cars. I'm just being realistic. The US competed pretty well then and still does. I don't see any reason to change to protectionism when we've done OK as a world trader, even though some times are better than others.

Impossible to overestimate their ability to make great cars.
They remain leaps and bounds ahead of us in that regard.

I guess it's too bad they can't base their entire economy on making cars. I do note other countries are moving in to challenge them. Hence my reasoning on protectionism that it's foolish to try and slow change when you should be adapting. Japan did it to us, and other countries will do it to Japan.

Guess there's not much of a market for Green Tea Kit-Kat Bars. (No kidding, I have one)

That's odd.

No chocolate!

From Japan?

Cool....

Besides automobiles, doesn't Japan have a little thing on the side going on with electronics?

Could be...

no chocolate in a Kit Kat bar?

You are a dangerous subversive.

Haven't you heard, Davis? She's a Marxist/Communist straw man for the far right wing extremists...and she kicks puppies, too!

Soooo....do be careful, my friend...she's thoroughly dangerous...she has these weird notions about people being free from the tyranny of others...real whacky stuff like not being victimized by another person's religious beliefs...

...I don't kick puppies, and I've been told I'm a nazi as well.

It's that centrist logic that gets their blood boiling.

No on the puppies, huh?

Hmmm...I musta got it wrong...

Maybe it was little old ladies.



Oh yeah, Bee...you are such a Nazi!

Gimme a break...

It's a whole new world when common sense is branded as Fascist thinking...

What amazes me is people complain about "sheeple" being led about by the nose, and then get led around by the nose themselves. Lke that argument the other night. Sure the Religious Right wants people to think their slimy tactics to get "potential death" on the list of what pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for is actually a first amendment issue. Of course it isn't. It's just another chip at Roe, but they buy the RR's line just like the "sheeple" they all look down their noses at and call me a totalitarian.

Sometimes smart people are soooo er, easily manipulate.

Potential death covers a whole lotta ground...once you start down that road, it's pretty much an open highway...maybe that's what is not being realized. You can't start saying this is okay, and this isn't. If we do that, where will it end? And what happens if those people that allow a particular idea/action to be instituted today cause something they don't agree with to be instituted tomorrow, based on a precedent that they themselves set?

If there's any totalitarian thinking going on, I would have to say it's not coming from you, that's for sure.

It's just groupthink. Sometimes I think it affects the board

I read quite an interesting article on that very subject just the other day...apparently, it's far more common than initially thought.

Why do you say that, bix? Bee's the one who wants the government to compel pharmacists to participate in what they believe to be murder.

Murder? Are they forcefully ending someones life? Sticking them with a knife? Slitting their throat? Pouring the pills down forcefully?

No.

They are expected to do their job and dole out the pills. If they can't, they find someone that can. Otherwise they must do their job.

They law will be clarified but maybe in a way you're too dim to see. A look at whose rushing the bills to state legislatures to protect the "pitiful pull pushers" make it simple to see the intent. It will hurt a lot of women.

Actually, I was under the impression that Bee wanted the pharmacist to fill the prescription given to the patient by the patient's doctor, nothing more, nothing less.

but you, of course, are immune. Because you are better than everybody.


ummm yeah.
Both Celt and FJ are more thoughtful and well-spoken, not to mention better educated, and they mopped the floor with your argument.

And they are both pro-choice.
The fact that they didn't fall into lockstep with NARAL is evidence that it isn't they that are sheeple.

By the force of law. Against their own deeply held, protected, religious beliefs.

That would be the pharmacist's problem, not the patient's.

Obviously I'm of the opinion that the plight of the "patient" is being overstated to chip away at religious freedom just as some think that the sensibilities of the religious is being used to chip away at RvW.
I also happen to put more stock into a specifically enumerated right dating to the founding than a discovered right younger than myself.