What Caught My Eye Today

Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez tried for the third time in his tumultuous decade in power to cast aside constitutional barriers to his re-election, arguing that only he can complete the transformation of Venezuela into a socialist state. Probably because he's the only one interested in doing so. Voters on both sides said their decision was crucial to the future of Venezuela, a deeply polarized country where Chavez has channeled tremendous oil wealth into combating gaping social inequality. People voting "yes" said Chavez has given poor Venezuelans cheap food, free education and quality health care, and empowered them with a discourse of class struggle after decades of U.S.-backed governments that favored the rich. People voting "no" said Chavez already has far too much power, with the courts, the legislature and the election council all under his influence. Removing the 12-year presidential term limit he pushed through in a 1999 referendum, they said, would make him unstoppable. No. No. I say, "12 more years, 12 more years." Venezuela has seen 15 elections or referendums in Chavez's decade, which Chavez supporters say proves his dedication to democracy and which supporters call tiresome. Chavez has said that even if he loses, there's nothing to stop him from calling another referendum. True. Why stop at three, or four, or however many it takes to get the result he wants? Chavez argues he needs more time to complete Venezuela's transition to socialism — a process he has said could take another decade or more. Chavez pledged to respect the results, whatever they are, and warned his opponents — whom he calls "sore losers" — that they had better do the same. Funny how "respecting the results" means that Chavez will keep having referendums until he gets what he wants. Maybe he's betting on voter fatigue. At some point they are likely to give up on hopes of voting Chavez out of office. They might just have to wait for natural causes to force Chavez to step down, like the Cubans did with Fidel Castro.

Oil - Crude oil prices have fallen to new lows for this year. So you'd think gas prices would sink right along with them. I know I did. On Thursday, for example, crude oil closed just under $34 a barrel, its lowest point for 2009. But the national average price of a gallon of gas rose to $1.95 on the same day, its peak for the year. On Friday gas went a penny higher. Okay, this gets a bit complicated, but try to keep up. I'll break it down at the end. The benchmark for crude oil prices is West Texas Intermediate. That's the price, set at the New York Mercantile Exchange and gets quoted on business channels and in the morning paper. West Texas crude is selling for much less than inferior grades of crude from other places around the world. A severe economic downturn has left U.S. storage facilities brimming with it, sending prices for the premium crude to five-year lows. The recession in America has dramatically cut demand for crude oil, and inventories are piling up. So prices for West Texas crude have fallen well below what oil costs from places like the North Sea, Saudi Arabia and South America. That foreign oil sells in some cases for $10 more per barrel. Historically, West Texas International crude has cost more. So nobody bothered building the necessary pipelines to carry it beyond the nearby refineries in the Midwest, parts of Texas and a handful of other places. Now that the premium oil is suddenly very inexpensive, refiners elsewhere can't get their hands on it. So why not build more pipelines? Because investing billions of dollars over several years makes no sense when the prices could just flip a year from now to where they were before. At the same time, refiners have seen the same headlines as everyone else about job losses and consumer spending. They've slashed production just to avoid taking losses on gasoline no one will buy. Result: Higher gas prices. Okay, so here's the bottom line...I think. The oil that sets the prices we hear about on TV is cheaper, but no one can get their hands on it to refine it into gas, because there isn't sufficient pipeline capacity to transport the cheap oil. No one wants to build new pipelines, because demand for gas is dropping. And, oh by the way, because demand is dropping, supply is dropping, thereby causing gas prices to rise. Did you follow all that? Me neither. All I know is that the current prices are still about half of what I was paying last summer. Plus, if you follow conspiracy theories, this increase in gas prices doesn't come as much of a surprise. After all, we aren't in an election year, are we?

Economy - This particular story focuses more on the political side of the economic meltdown. I warn you ahead of time, if you are susceptible to high blood pressure, you may want to skip this item. My blood was definitely boiling after I read it. The U.S. Treasury Department released the following statistics on spending on lobbying efforts by financial institutions receiving federal bail out funds (Bailout Awards / 2008 Spending / 2007 Spending):

• Citigroup -- $45 billion / $7.7 million / $8.5 million
• AIG -- $40 billion / $9.7 million / $11.4 million)
• Bank of America -- $35 billion / $4.1 million / $3.2 million
• JPMorgan Chase -- $25 billion / $5.4 million / $5.5 million
• Merrill Lynch -- $10 billion / $4.7 million / $4.4 million
• Goldman Sachs -- $10 billion / $3.3 million / $2.8 million
• Morgan Stanley -- $10 billion / $3.1 million / $2.8 million

Seems to me that B of A got the most bang for its buck. On the off chance that those numbers don't put you over the edge, how about trying these on for size, courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics. Financial services firms channeled the following amounts to influential politicians in the form campaign donations between 2007 and 2008:

• Chris Dodd (Dem), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee -- $5.95 million
• Dick Durbin (Dem), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations & Financial Services Subcommittee -- $1.3 million
• Charles Rangel (Dem), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee -- $1.35 million
• Barney Frank (Dem) Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee -- $984,000

Heck, no wonder the Democrats are so happen to control the majorities in both the Senate and the House. Those chairmanships pay rather handsomely don't they?

Man-speak - I got this bit from Esquire. What are men referring to when they say one of the following?

• water closet
• washroom
• loo
• lavatory
• john
• head
• throne room
• the bogs
• inner sanctum
• comfort station
• the place to be

I've been know to use "washroom" and "lavatory" from time to time, but usually I make my intentions known by issuing the following statement, "I have to pee." I then proceed to find the nearest toilet or suitable substitute.

Cycling - Here's your daily Tour of California update. Lance Armstrong is still among the leaders of the Tour of California after an opening day featuring drenching rain, a flat tire, a minor crash and even the theft of his time-trial bike. Armstrong persevered through his profoundly gloomy Sunday to finish near the front of a grueling 107-mile stage from Davis to Santa Rosa. He led a chase group that never quite caught up to the race leaders, including surprise stage winner Francisco Mancebo of Spain. The stage marked a strong showing by the Astana team, as Lance Armstrong, Levi Leipheimer and Oregon's Chris Horner led a chase group across the finish line about a minute after Mancebo, Belgium's Jurgen Van de Walle and Italy's Vincenzo Nibali. Fabian Cancellara, who won Saturday's prologue to claim the leader's yellow jersey, dropped out of the race during today's first stage. Mancebo now will wear the yellow jersey in Monday's Stage 2, which covers 115.9 miles from Sausalito to Santa Cruz. As I go to press this evening, I cannot find the overall standings through Stage 1. I'm pretty sure that Mancebo has about a minute or so on Levi and Lance, which is rather significant seeing as in the four year history of the Tour, the winner has never won by a margin of more than 45 seconds.