Those of you in that select, elite group — Mac users of statistical software - may be interested in our (sister site’s) SPSS 16 for the Macintosh review.

This entry is posted with Bill’s permission. It was written in 2002 but still applies.

When I was visiting a web site today, I hit one of those “pop-up” ads. This one reminded me that sales of illegal drugs help fund terrorism. Of course, they are also beginning once more to help bolster the real economy of the now-friendly Afghanistan, but we’ll pretend that doesn’t matter for the moment. Let’s just agree that a portion of the proceeds from the huge international drug trade does wind up in the hands of terrorists. That’s bad, right?

What no one, especially no one in our oil- industry- friendly Administration or Congress, is saying is that terrorists get a lot more money from oil. Isn’t that bad, too? I may be wrong, but I don’t think Osama bin Laden’s wealth is rooted in the drug trade.

During the recent hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein offered $25,000 each to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. That’s a nice hunk of change. But Iraq has been under all sorts of embargoes and restrictions since the Gulf War. Their domestic economy is in ruins; many Iraqis are living under terrible hardships and the death rate among Iraqi children is skyrocketing. So where is Hussein getting the money?

A lot of it is coming from us.

The CIA World Factbook says Iraq’s exports include oil, oil products, fertilizer and sulfur. Oil accounts for 95% of the export total. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, Iraq’s current output is somewhere between 1.5 million and 2.3 million barrels a day. We take about a third of that. Last year, 8% of our total oil imports came from Iraq. 

Yesterday, crude oil for June Delivery closed at $26.12 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That’s down fifty cents from the previous day and the price is likely to decline further, now that Iraq has announced resumption of oil deliveries. If we multiply the lower production figure by 33%, the government’s own figures show we are consume about 495,000 barrels of oil daily from Iraq. Based on the May 7 closing price, that works out to $12,929,400 each day. We pay over $4.7 billion per year for Iraqi oil. Remember, that’s using the administration’s lower production figures.

Of course, because of the UN sanctions, Iraqi oil is exported in exchange for food and humanitarian supplies. But it has also been used to pay for things like the more than $73 million in drilling equipment purchased from the U.S. (Note: when those sales were made, Vice President Cheney owned stakes in the two companies that made them.) The sanctions haven’t stopped Saddam Hussein from accumulating cash do things like build new palaces, fund weapons development and give big bucks to suicide bombers and those who train and equip them.

As with many in the current administration, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice misses the connection. When she spoke about Iraq’s 30-day oil embargo at Texas A&M University in April, Ms. Rice said, “We ought to remind them that they’re going to have a hard time eating their oil.” While it’s a cute quip, she overlooks, or ignores, the problem that Americans have no trouble whatsoever “eating their oil.”

Our appetite for oil is higher than it was in the 1970s. That is not an opinion: it’s a fact. It is also a fact that a large percentage of the oil we import goes to fuel our vehicles, whose overall average fuel economy is lower than it was in the 1980s. Despite decades of lip service to decreasing American independence on foreign oil, we now consume far more oil from the Middle East than in the days of the Arab oil embargo.

Much of our increased appetite can be traced to the growing popularity of light trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Especially sport-utility vehicles. The majority of passenger cars sold in America today are smaller than the cars sold in the 1970s. While sales of “econo-boxes” make up only a small percentage of automobile sales, the best-selling models still have 6-cylinder engines and get reasonable mileage while serving the transportation needs of their owners.

It has been estimated that a five-percent improvement in the average fuel economy of American vehicles would reduce our imports of foreign oil to the point we could cut Iraq off completely.

Five percent? I have a way we can do that now. There is no need for a mass switch to Toyota Priuses or Honda Insights. Or abandoning SUVs. There is no need for government mandates, new gas taxes or increases in the CAFE standards. Detroit does not have to come up with any new technology and nobody is laid off. Moreover, almost everyone would be happy because there is no need to fight over drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. We can save that oil for when we might really need it. Oh yeah, air quality would improve, too.

And, get this: It saves money - your money.

What is this miracle? How will it work?

It’s simple: all that is needed is for all of us to make a better buying decision when it’s new vehicle time. There are more than fifty different sport utility vehicles on the market. A number of them perform just fine with a 6-cylinder engine. There are even some that can get by with a 4-cylinder engine. Buy one of those instead of a giant barge that is neither sporty nor particularly utilitarian. If you are one of the many pickup owners whose trucks never actually carry a load anywhere near their capacities, perhaps you could get a smaller truck or even a big truck with a smaller engine. If you really need the torque because you carry loads of sheetrock or tow a trailer, why not buy a diesel? If you carry lots of people frequently, buy a minivan. If enough people start to involve their heads in their personal vehicle decisions, we could chop our oil imports dramatically in five years without a major lifestyle change.

Think about it. You win because you are avoiding the vehicles with the huge profit margins, getting more value for your money. You win again by not paying extra for a bigger engine. You continue to win because you don’t have to fill the tank as often. On top of everything else, you help your country by keeping your money out of Saddam Hussein’s pockets.

It’s a winning situation for everyone except Iraq. And the terrorists. And the arms merchants. And Dick Cheney. But Cheney’s happiness is a small sacrifice; one I’m sure we’re all willing to make to win the war on terrorism.

But, I can hear you saying, what about the safety of that three-ton steel cocoon? Well, unless you can guarantee that all you’ll ever hit is a Honda, the truth is they’re not all that safe. In rollovers and collisions involving things like trees, Peterbilts and other three-ton cocoons, it seems your chances of injury or death may actually be higher.

Gee, getting the facts and using your head when selecting your next vehicle might not only be patriotic, it might even help you live longer. This program looks better and better all the time.

In a recent interview, Harry Longwell, executive vice president of ExxonMobil, said OPEC’s influence on the world’s oil supply is going to grow in the coming years. Oil production from non-member countries is expected to decline. This means we need to move quickly to safeguard our national interests. Iraq may not currently be an active participant in OPEC, but it is a member. And don’t forget about Libya. Qaddafi has provided a safe haven for terrorism for years. Remember Lockerbie? Osama bin Laden isn’t the only one with a fondness for doing bad things with airplanes.

It is time to start making public service ads linking Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades to the Al-Qaida. That guy sitting in his Chevrolet Avalanche needs to be reminded that it’s time for a real change: instead of just folding down the back seat, he should do his part to cut off the means for nutball tyrants to fund ruthless killers. Paint a 4-cylinder Jeep Liberty red, white and blue and make it a symbol of freedom from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And, we should slap bumper stickers that say “I Help Support Worldwide Terrorism” on gas guzzlers, whether they are cars, trucks or SUVs.

We don’t need to spend billions invading Iraq. Let’s face it: Saddam Hussein doesn’t have that many friends. We have a chance, as individuals, to put a real crimp in his ability to buy more.

And save millions of dollars while we do it.

Can’t get much more All- American than that.

After his lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler and his ill-fated idea of a tie-up between GM and Renault-Nissan in 2006, then his attempt to buy Chrysler from Daimler (which involved a huge amount of employee ownership; he lost to Cerberus, and quite probably was never seriously considered), “Captain Kirk” Kerkorian bought a stake of 5% of Ford, after seeing that Ford had begun a turnaround.

Will “Captain Kerk” do a call to another automaker for a tie-up with Ford? If that theory is true, before thinking then it could be Ghosn of Renault-Nissan. It could also be one then Ford have currently a joint-venture currently like Peugeot-Citroen for the diesel engines and Fiat (the next-gen European Ford Ka will use the Fiat 500 platform) or a new player like Tata, who they sold Jaguar and Land Rover to them (and besides, Tata might rename themselves Ford since in the French-Canadian slang, “tata” means idiot.”)

Do you think then Kirk’s arrival at Ford is good news?

“Chrysler-Renault-Nissan” (CRN or will it be Chrysler-Nissan-Renault/CNR?) may have been started with the recent talks which resulted in a joint-venture between Chrysler, Nissan, and by extension, Renault. First with the Versa sold as a Chrysler model in South America and then, the next-generation Titan (if they still call the Titan) will use the Dodge Ram chassis and drivetrains while Chrysler will receive from Nissan a small-car platform then some expect then it could span the Hornet. Some (including me, I must confess) begin to think then it could be the 1st step of a bigger plans hence the name I mentioned earlier in the beginning of the text. Unless “Captain Kirk” Kerkorian reserves another surprise with its recent move of acquiring 5% of Ford.

However, until something unexpected arrives from nowhere, we leave the idea of CRN/CNR as a pipe dream for a moment. For the small car, the Hornet could use the Nissan B-platform which includes the Nissan Cube, the Versa known in overseas markets as the Tiida, Renault Clio, etc…there the Renault Logan (sold as Dacia in some markets and as Nissan Aprio in Mexico) which could be the new “Dodge Rambler.” I also thought of reviving the Dart nameplate but I don’t think purists might like the idea althought then the Dart nameplate was once used in Mexico for a K-car variant.

Could we begin to imagine some other possibilities like a Dodge Demon based on a future small Nissan RWD platform or a Nissan Frontier built on the Dakota chassis. (Don’t worry, I won’t imagine some swap of engines like using the Hemi instead of the Twin-turbo V6 under the hood of the GT-R or using the Twin-Turbo V6 of the GT-R for a very limited edition of the Challenger.)

I guess we have to stay tuned for further developments at the “same Mopar-time, same Mopar-channel.”

I’ve been out sick for nearly a week - an ordinary case of the flu hits you harder when you’re recovering from other treatments - but I’ve managed, for the first time in two or three days, to sit at the computer long enough to catch up on some e-mail. Nearly lost amidst the various implications that I need to adjust my body in various ways was an article by Jim Sponseller, which looked at some of the lesser remembered history of Detroit and brought up some extra reasons why Americans may want to think twice about buying imported vehicles. I think it’s worth a look.

…you probably can’t see any difference unless you write for the weblog.

As a reminder, anyone can send in material to be posted on Allpar’s weblog, subject to editorial review. We invite your postings.

The weblogs essentially replace our prior system of guest editorials which could become outdated a bit too quickly (to wit, our collections of anti-Daimler-takeover and keep-Plymouth-going editorials, not to mention requests to Chrysler to better publicize the Neon’s track wins.)

Anyway, just thought you should know we’re staying up to date.