text:
Home / Commentary / The Full-Format American Dream
The Full-Format American Dream
Amerika as a key tool of Cold War public diplomacy
by Elise Crane
A graduate student of public diplomacy looks at one of the most successful public diplomacy products during the Cold War. Are there lessons for today's public diplomats contained in the glossy pages of USIA's premier publication? -The Editor
"Amerika gave us the truth—and the illusion—of America."
-Joseph Brodsky
The Nuts and Bolts of Cold War Diplomacy
At its core, public diplomacy involves communicating directly with a foreign public to explain America, increase mutual understanding, and promote dialogue. It aims to present America's best face to the world and to use soft power—culture, institutions, and the essence of Americana—to promote positive opinions about the United States and U.S. foreign policy among overseas audiences. Never was this more important, nor more challenging, than during the Cold War.
The Cold War was essentially a 56-year freeze on traditional diplomacy between the United States and the Soviet Union. It necessitated alternative, creative approaches and elevated public diplomacy programs to vital importance. As Soviet authorities forbid travel outside of the Soviet Union, America was a black hole to most Soviet citizens; they had only Soviet propaganda, which was usually inaccurate and often malicious, from which to form their perceptions of the United States. Virtually airtight to outside influence, Soviet authorities created their own image of the world and relentlessly distributed these distortions to their subjects. The U.S. government, and specifically the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), confronted a critical need for programs to counter Soviet propaganda, present factual information about America, and provide Soviets with a highly demanded window on the West. With key exceptions such as the Moscow Kitchen Debate in 1959, however, USIA was prevented from using the bulk of its traditional tools, including unrestrained broadcasting and print publications, cultural exchange, exhibits, American centers, and direct personal contact.
Cover of the last issue of Amerika
Strict Soviet censorship was a key element affecting the formation and dissemination of Cold War-era public diplomacy programs. Because of its unique reciprocal distribution arrangement, Amerika, a striking USIA-produced Russian-language magazine, obviated tight Soviet censorship on print publications and provided its public with their only unfiltered view of the West. Certainly, broadcasting by the Voice of America and Radio Liberty played a huge role in changing hearts and minds and affecting perceptions about the West. Further, while Amerika stuck to what it did best—highlighting everyday life on the other side of the Iron Curtain—broadcasting presented U.S. foreign policy. However, given Russian reverence for the written word, Amerika arguably affected the public more powerfully than radio ever could. In short, Amerika functioned in a daunting, and often hostile, political environment and conquered steep challenges to serve as the ideal public diplomacy instrument for its place and time.
Amerika's Unique Impact
Given the frigidity of Cold War politics, the Soviet crackdown on traditional public diplomacy methods, and the impossibility of direct cultural outreach, special USIA publications such as Amerika (known as America Illustrated in the United States) were the key instruments in appealing to a widely dispersed and culturally alienated Soviet audience. Amerika, published monthly from 1944-1994 under a special reciprocal distribution arrangement, corrected Soviet disinformation about America and provided Russians with a vivid depiction of everyday life in the West. Although it is notoriously difficult to measure the impact of public diplomacy, it seems that an absence of such programs as Amerika would have resulted in disastrously skewed Soviet perceptions of the United States, based entirely on virulently anti-American propaganda.
In his excellent book on USIA programs that transcended the Iron Curtain, Walter Hixson quotes a Moscow diplomat on the success of Amerika in 1959: "with the exception of personal contacts, Amerika magazine has made the greatest contribution to better understanding of America by the Soviets and to provision of accurate information about the U.S., thus counteracting to some degree anti-American propaganda."1 This paper will examine the structure and key elements of Amerika, its deployment and evolution during the Cold War era, and its relative success to other USIA publications and broadcasting, and will examine current Russia-specific public diplomacy efforts as State moves toward a Web 2.0 model.
Why it Worked: the Social and Political Context that Required Special Treatment
Soviet society was, and Russian society remains, unique on several counts relevant to public diplomacy programs. Most importantly, intelligence has always carried a high value and literacy has been nearly universal. Dick Baker worked on Amerika for many years and viewed Soviet literacy rates as a "non-issue."2 This was surely a rare luxury for public diplomacy professionals, given global illiteracy rates, and allowed them to use print media to effectively target not just elite opinion makers, but also the mass public. One cannot overstate the importance of print publications in a society that adulates the written word; knowing its audience, USIA officials had to develop an excellent print product that appealed to the Soviet intellect while providing images of daily American life. Amerika hit the target.
Despite nearly universal literacy, Amerika relied as much on images as on words. According to Dick Baker, who worked on the magazine for many years, most Soviet citizens were aware that their government fed them lies. By extension, they expected that the U.S. government would lie to them as well. However, "they trusted pictures more than words," said former USIA official Howard Cincotta.3 One image of a fully stocked American supermarket provided an infinitely more credible and powerful image of life in the West than could have a 5000-word article about consumer goods.
From President Truman's "Campaign of Truth" to President Reagan's "Project Truth," illusion versus reality was a constant theme in Soviet-U.S. relations and required external correction. Soviet propaganda was rife with accusations of U.S. racism, including official comparisons of Reagan administration attitudes to those of the Ku Klux Klan, implying that "the administration supported Klan activity."4 Reports of a U.S. conspiracy to spread AIDS via biological warfare persisted until 1988.5 A 1979 CSIS report concluded that "horror stories about American society still abound in the Soviet press," including claims of babies being sold under the evil aegis of capitalism. 6
Although Amerika shied away from responding overtly to such accusations, it featured images and stories that highlighted the relative merits of capitalism—such as fully stocked supermarket shelves—and that vividly promoted the "Leave it to Beaver" brand of 1950s familial love. The implicit message in such efforts, it seems, could be interpreted as "We do not sell our babies in America." Amerika also featured such stories as "The Negro Today," which aimed to present facts and figures of African American successes as anecdotes to allegations of entrenched racism.7 The success of such counterpropaganda is difficult to measure, but it seems justified against the alternative of passively watching the spread of malicious Soviet disinformation.
In its first issue, USIA's Problems of Communism featured an article that acknowledged rampant Soviet propaganda but argued thatSoviet youth had not yet been completely indoctrinated.8 This gap provided a window of opportunity for such publications as Amerika to correct disinformation and appeal to certain Soviets who saw through the propaganda overload and began to sympathize, perhaps unconsciously, toward America.9 In this sense, the extremity and borderline absurdity of anti-American propaganda served to intensify Soviet fascination with America and to whet its palate for any available information.10
Of all public diplomacy programs aimed at the Soviet Union, including broadcasting and other print publications, Amerika responded most successfully to popular appetite for information about the West. Starved for images of and information about a land that must have seemed worlds away, Soviets developed an obsessive interest in Western, and particularly American, ways of life. Many former PD professionals involved in Amerika describe this obsession as integral to the magazine's success. George Clack, Amerika's last editor, emphasized Amerika's ability to tap into an enormous hunger for information about the West in a country notoriously scarce on information.11 Howard Cincotta described his time at Amerika as "probably the only time in my editorial career when I was positive that our stuff was reaching a large, appreciative audience." This opinion was substantiated by the booming black market for "unsold" issues and Soviet attempts to obviate the distribution agreement. As Yale Richmond aptly put it, "nothing attracts like forbidden fruit."12 Amerika, in essence, was that forbidden fruit.
Interior pages, from Frank Lloyd Wright to Football
How it Worked: the Reciprocal Distribution Agreement
The cultural agreements initiated between Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt paved the way for Amerika's reciprocal distribution with Soviet Life. Under the first agreement, signed in 1945, Amerika was publishedby the Office of War Information and lacked a Soviet counterpart. Realizing its impact on the mass public in early 1950, Soviet authorities began to manipulate circulation numbers and to claim that Soviet readers had "lost interest in Amerika," returning 25,000 supposedly unsold copies to the U.S. embassy each month.13 This led USIA officials to discontinue Amerika in 1952 and to redouble efforts in broadcasting. Then-editor Marion Sanders fought valiantly to save the magazine, citing its centrality in reaching a broad and educated audience. A New York Times editorial supported her fight, claiming "the suspension of Amerika is regrettable because it was the last direct means of giving the Russian people a glimpse of American life and American aims in refutation of Soviet lies. That is the reason why the Soviets wished to keep it out of Russian hands."14
Stalin's death led to a renewed Soviet-American cultural agreement in October 1956 and the inception of a reciprocal distribution scheme. President Eisenhower led the re-launch of Amerika, which was once again an "instant success and invariably sold out quickly," leading to renewed Soviet attempts to restrict its circulation in violation of the cultural agreement terms.15 These terms stipulated that each magazine could sell up to 50,000 copies in its respective market. The Soviet magazine distributed in the United States, originally called USSR but later changed to Soviet Life, sold for 20 cents and was by many accounts a burdensome product. Its first issue in July 1956 began promisingly enough, with "interesting if rose-tinted" articles on Russian jet liners, ballet, peaceful atom use, Soviet farming, sports, poetry, and cartoons.16 However, Soviet Life articles were "heavy with freight" and dripping with overt ideology that failed to resonate with U.S. readers.17 Unlike Amerika, which enjoyed the status of being virtually the only visual window on America in the USSR, Soviet Life competed with a range of U.S. magazines reporting on foreign affairs.18 In the booming U.S. media market, Soviet Life was not the only available presentation of Soviet life.
A ban on subscriptions meant that USIA was reliant on the Soyuzpechat press agency for Amerika's distribution. Interpreting the reciprocity agreement to its strictest form, from their 50,000 copies each month Soviet authorities returned the same number of "unsold" copies of Amerika as American authorities returned of Soviet Life.19 The rate of return became a critical problem when Soviet Life distribution fell to 20,000 copies per month and led American officials to ask its DC employees to each buy a few copies to increase the figures.20 Former Amerika staff editors described cunning Soviet attempts to bypass the formal distribution agreement, including forcing news kiosk retailers to claim they were sold out of Amerika when in fact thousands of copies remained undistributed.21 The Soviets then returned these "unwanted" copies to the U.S. embassy, which Dick Baker describes as "ridiculous. America was a highly desirable item." In an interview for State's Oral History Project, Robert E. McCarthy described the regularity of allegedly unsellable returns and Soviet claims of insufficient demand. "This was simply to make a political point," said McCarthy; public demand for Amerika was undeniable. Every USIA officer interviewed for this paper vividly described the winding queues that would form at news kiosks, with Soviets waiting hours for copies of Amerika.
As a minor and secondary effort to the official Soyuzpechat distribution system, the United States sent roughly 2,000 copies of Amerika to influential elites, targeted by Moscow embassy staff, along with clippings from the Wireless File.22 This list, significantly, included the young Mikhail Gorbachev; although the magazinewas just one piece in forming Gorbachev's views on the West, it seems to speak for Amerika's long-term contribution in toppling communism from within.23
Officially, the Soyuzpechat gave USIA the revenue from copies of Amerika sold on news kiosks, but as Dick Baker said, the money was "meaningless. It was about hearts and minds, not about money, but at least this was some way of keeping score" and attempting to reduce Soviet deviance in skirting the reciprocity agreement.
Some officials were more skeptical than others of the Soyuzpechat; former Moscow diplomat William Watts felt that "if you put it [Amerika] in the kiosk, the authorities would just take them away."24 In light of this, USIA staff devised innovative ways of getting Amerika into Soviet hands. When embassy officers and workers left the building, they would take stacks of Amerika,leaving copies on trains and sometimes throwing them out of train windows. As Kenneth Skoug said, "We knew that they [Soviet authorities] would find it out eventually, but we thought that before they did somebody might have the chance to read something interesting."25
Amerika as a Collector's Item
Amerika's greatest strength was its powerful images, factual presentation of the American way of life, and relatively hands-off approach to swaying hearts and minds. Modeled after Life and other popular U.S. magazines, Amerika featured vibrant color photos, thick, glossy paper, and an oversized format. In contrast to bleak Soviet publications, it had sensory appeal and wowed Soviet citizens with its detail and workmanship. "It was everything that the USSR wasn't," said McKinney Russell, a former USIA official who worked in the Moscow embassy in the late 1960s. "It was glossy, colorful, varied, and well-edited."26
By relying on factual content, Amerika lived up to Creighton Peet's definition of good public diplomacy: "never to tell other people what we think is wrong with them or how much better we are—but merely to show them what kind of people we are, how we live and work, and, indirectly, ask for their understanding and support."27 Amerika eschewed political propaganda, focusing instead on rosy presentations of U.S. daily life.28 Images of happy families relaxing on beaches, taking airplane rides, and picnicking in parks were tantalizing to Russians entrenched in the daily grind of subsistence living. Images of new technology, such as variations on "The Automobile—Inside and Outside," and photo essays on New York's skyscrapers must have seemed to spring from an alien world for Russians accustomed to one car model and drab Soviet architecture.29
As Yale Richmond said, "There is no doubt that readers were impressed with the standard of living and everyday life in the United States portrayed in the magazine, and they made the inevitable comparisons with their own lives."30 By showing America's best face, Amerika allowed Soviets to draw their own conclusions about the relative merits of communism and contributed to a growing internal discontent with the Soviet way of life.
Howard Cincotta underlined Amerika's strength in flaunting a prosperous U.S. lifestyle. "We would do a story on people who fix their own homes and would run a full-page picture of an entire wall of toilet seats in Home Depot. The story and the caption didn't really matter; what riveted Soviet readers was the unbelievable idea that you could choose from 20 or more toilet seats. As a society built on the scarcity of consumer goods, the contrast was striking." John Brown, another former Moscow diplomat who worked with Amerika, underlined its ability to gently present another way of life to Soviet readers: "it did not take much imagination on their part to conclude that this [U.S.] way of life was a better and freer one. [Amerika] also 'looked' far better than local publications—another way of telling readers that the USA, although not perfect, was a fine place to be."31
Former editor George Clack described Amerika's mission as two-fold: to demonstrate the superiority of America's twin pillars of democracy and capitalism and to quench Soviet curiosity by showing how Americans lived. Amerika's content reflected this mission by including reprints from such popular magazines as Life and Look, which were supplemented by USIA-solicited articles. Solicited articles more directly promoted capitalism and democracy, with such titles as "The Role of the President" and "Labor and Management: a Partnership," but Amerika editors sensed their readers would respond better to human-interest stories. Thus they relied primarily on such reprints as "Best Dressed College Girls" and "America's 1956 Automobiles to satiate Soviet curiosity while conveying subtle political messages.32
Perhaps Amerika's greatest legacy, and evidence of its profound impact on the Soviet psyche, is its attainment of keepsake status. Dick Baker described the Soviet obsession with collecting the full set (454 issues in total) of the "classic production," while George Clack highlighted the pass-along rate and resultant "multiplier effect," which is a unique benefit of print publications. Because copies were so limited and kiosks often sold out (or "sold out," depending the current level of Soviet distribution crackdown), citizens would often pass around the same dog-eared copy of Amerika to several people. Estimates of the pass-along rate vary between five and twelve per copy, but regardless of the exact figure, the "multiplier effect" necessitated heavy-duty paper and thick staples. Fitzhugh Green said that "each new issue disappears faster than rain in the desert, and the pass-along readership approaches a half dozen per copy."33 A 1949 Time article estimated that the 50,000 sanctioned copies "get thumbed by about 1,000,000 Soviet citizens";34 small wonder that Green cited Amerika as USIA's "most notable" magazine and a model for other USIA publications.35
Measuring its Impact
Given strict Soviet control, USIA could not rely on traditional means such as focus groups or reader surveys to gauge Amerika's popular reception. Dick Baker remembered only two audience surveys during his 14 years with Amerika. Embassy staff relied on Amerika's obvious popularity with both the public and the elite, evidenced by constant scarcity problems and the flourishing black market, as the primary marker of its success. According to a 1946 Time article, on the black market Amerika could command 100 times its cover price of 10 rubles from Russians eager "for a look at the Amerika most of them will never see except in pictures."36 Amerika was seen as "the thing to have on your coffee table" to show you were "in the know," said George Clack, which effectively transformed the magazine into an elite prestige symbol. This symbolism reached the highest ranks of Soviet authority, Dick Baker argued. Even if Soviet officials were hostile to America, "they still wanted Amerika." Baker described a recent visit with a Russian foreign ministry official. After seeing an issue of Amerika on Baker's desk, the official rhapsodized at length about his fond memories of Amerika.
Amerika's impact was also evident by tracking Soviet distribution crackdowns and propaganda counterblasts. According to former USIA official Robert Cattell, "when the Soviets got difficult about distribution it was a sign that our editors were doing something right." Yale Richmond has similar views on distribution crackdowns: "the effectiveness of Amerika can best be assessed by the extreme measures taken by the Soviet authorities to limit its distribution."37 Soviet counterpropaganda showed that authorities were reading Amerika too, or at least aware of its powerful impact on its populace. A 1949 Time article cited Pravda and Izvestia, major Soviet dailies, as launching frequent assaults against Amerika, and quoted former editor Marion Sanders as saying happily, "that means we must be getting read."38 Propaganda counterblasts typically centered on U.S. race relations, vehemently denying the validity of such Amerika features as Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and drawing vivid comparisons, complete with "atrocity drawings," to the Ku Klux Klan.39
Amerika's Evolution and Demise
As with all good public diplomacy efforts, Amerika's focus and content evolved to meet its audience's changing demands and the mutating political context in which it operated. A series of high-profile defections in the 1960s, which included Joseph Stalin's daughter, opened the door to more serious content in Amerika. Reflecting growing disillusionment with communism within the Soviet empire, these defections "spoke for themselves, and were more convincing (and devastating) without USIA pontificating," gradually leading Amerika to focus on the "substance rather than the surface of American life."40
Amerika took a marked turn toward more serious material when the USSR began opening to the outside world in the late 1980s. According to George Clack, the content shift was particularly striking after glasnost allowed foreign commercial media into the once info-scarce Soviet market and Amerika suddenly had to compete for readers in an info-rich, often cacophonous media environment. Clack described Amerika as "very eclectic" in the early 1990s, as it simultaneously appealed to Soviet interest in pop culture with features on Madonna and Schwarzenegger and responded to demand for more practical information with features by Milton Friedman on capitalism and Paul Samuelson on business start-ups.
Despite its swift response to changing tastes and demand, Amerika experienced a sharp drop in sales after 1989. Soyuzpechat, the Soviet distribution apparatus, presented then-editor George Clack with a trifecta of explanations for the decrease: 1) terrifically difficult economic times for Soviets meant they had no money for magazines, no matter how minimal the cost, 2) with the entrance of Western commercial media, Amerika was no longer the "forbidden fruit," 3) Soviets were becoming more inward-looking, with no time or money to worry about the United States. Despite these challenges, and the "whole new ballgame" ushered in by glasnost, Clack said Amerika was still selling around 100,000 copies per month in 1994. Competing with Hollywood is no small feat; Amerika fought admirably for five years after glasnost and may well have continued if USIA Director Joe Duffy hadn't eliminated the agency's entire magazine division in 1994.
Amerika's Relevance in the 21st Century
A key challenge for modern public diplomacy is in promoting dialogue over one-way projection of information. With limited resources and limitless issues to confront, it is imperative to find a new way of doing things and creating opportunities for conversation. Under-Secretary Judith McHale has highlighted the potential of new media and stressed the importance of two-way communication and continued engagement.41 Although Amerika arguably lacked a true dialogue function, it was responsive to Soviet demand for information and got people talking about the positive aspects of America. As George Clack says, the key is in "finding connections between the old and new ways of doing public diplomacy while maintaining the same basic principles." Clack sees potential in new media's "multiplier effect," which is reminiscent of Amerika's unique function. Clack draws particular focus to the distinctions of new media, in which State may lose control of the specific message but, in doing so, can invite questions, encourage dialogue and, ultimately, produce a genuine online community.
We need to find the best possible option for today's unique circumstances and using today's new tools, but we should not lose sight of successful programs from the past. Howard Cincotta argues that proper usage of technology in public diplomacy focuses on the four Rs: "right content, right audience, right format—right now."42 If new media can be employed in a way that draws on successful lessons of the past—appealing content, soft persuasion, targeted impact, and increased opportunities for dialogue—and can highlight user-generated content, it will hugely strengthen modern public diplomacy and allow us to do more with less resources.
In a 2008 editorial, John McCain called attention to the continued importance of public diplomacy and identified its objective "not to force the American way of life on anyone else, but to expose the world to the American story of hope, opportunity, charity and liberty."43 What made Amerika so popular was its vivid and factual presentation of life on the other side; although the West is no longer "forbidden fruit" and many Russians may have visited the United States, it remains critical to respond to demand for more in-depth information about our way of life and the best version of America.
1. Walter L. Hixson. Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997: 118.
2. Dick Baker, former USIA official. Interview by Elise Crane. Phone interview, 16 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
3. Howard Cincotta, IIP official. Interview by Elise Crane. Email interview, 24 October 2009. Somerville, MA.
4. Jonathan A. Becker. Soviet and Russian Press Coverage of the United States: Press, Politics and Identity in Transition. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), 114.
5. Constance Holden. "Curbing Soviet Disinformation." Science 242, no. 4879 (1988), 665.
6. Barry Rubin. "How Others Report Us: American in the Foreign Press." The Washington Papers, Volume VII. Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University (1979), 52.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(magazine). Accessed 22 November 2009.
8. G.F. Achinow. "The Second Soviet Generation." Problems of Communism no 1. (New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1952), 12-15.
9. Vassily Aksyonov. In Search of Melancholy Baby. (New York: Random House, 1985), 16.
10. Yale Richmond. Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 6.
11. George Clack, former Amerika editor and USIA official. Interview by Elise Crane. Phone interview, 20 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
13. Creighton Peet. "Russian 'Amerika,' a Magazine About U.S. for Soviet Citizens." College Art Journal 11, no. 1 (1951), 19.
14. "The Press: The Death of Amerika." Time, 28 July 1952, 51
15. Walter L. Hixson. Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997), 117.
16. "The Press: On Again." Time 30 July 1956: 50.
17.Yale Richmond. Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 72.
18.Ibid 72.
19. Hans Tuch. Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 52.
20. Leonard J. Baldyga, former USIA official. Interview by Elise Crane. Email interview, 27 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
21. Robert Cattell, former USIA official. Interview by Elise Crane. Phone interview, 19 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
22, Ibid
23. Yale Richmond. Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 102.
24. William Watts. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. Interview by Charles Stuart Kennedy, 7 August 1995. Copyright 1998 ADST.
25. Kenneth N. Skoug. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. Interview by Charles Stuart Kennedy, 22 August 2000. Copyright 2002 ADST.
26. McKinney Russell, former PAO Moscow. Interview by Elise Crane. Phone interview, 5 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
28. Thomas C. Sorenson. The Word War: The Story of American Propaganda. (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 87.
29.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(magazine). Accessed 22 November 2009.
31. John Brown, former USIA official. Interview by Elise Crane. Email interview, 13 October 2009, Somerville, MA.
32. Walter L. Hixson. Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997: 118.
33. Fitzhugh Green. American Propaganda Abroad. (New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc, 1988), 63.
34. "The Press: The Voice of Amerika." (Time, 6 June 1949), 45.
35. Ibid 63.
36. The Press: "Amerika for the Russians." (Time, 4 March 1946), 69.
40. Sorensen, Thomas C. The Word War: The Story of American Propaganda. (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 293.
41. Joshua Fouts. "Social Media, Virtual Worlds and Public Diplomacy." (World Politics Review 13 October 2009), Accessed online at http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=4440 31 October 2009.
42, Howard Cincotta. "Wireless File to Web: State Department's Print and Electronic Media in the Arab World." In Engaging the Arab and Islamic Worlds Through Public Diplomacy, ed. William A. Rugh. (New York: Public Diplomacy Council, 2004), 151.
43. John McCain. "Hone U.S. Message of Freedom." Orlando Sentinel, June 28, 2007, A15.
Elise Crane is a master's candidate at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. She is focusing on international communication and conflict resolution, with an emphasis on media as a tool of post-conflict reconciliation. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Colorado in 2006, where she studied international relations and Russian. Most recently, Elise worked in the Czech Republic as a media representative, which included business trips to Moscow to meet with newspaper editors. This summer she will intern with the Department of State's Office of South Central Europe and plans to take the Foreign Service exam in early 2010.
Categories: Commentary
Previous Post:When the KGB Tried to Recruit Me
Next Post:Peace and Security in the Levant


Join this one-hour open meeting with Balanced View Trainers for an easeful and accessible introduction to the nature of mind and your wholly perfect beneficial nature.
Learn the one simple way to empower and harmonise your relationships. Discover a powerful technique that brings live a life of ease and openness. Take away a simple practice and access to free online support and resources.
Balanced View is a modern training rooted in timeless wisdom for people who want to be of benefit to all. If you are new to the Balanced View Training these meetings are perfect to drop by to.


Teachscape's software tools were developed to accelerate the development of educators, enhance the effectiveness of schools and districts, and increase student achievement.
To help manage its growth and reinforce its position as the teaching effectiveness company, Teachscape recently undertook a rebranding project. The objective: to re-energize the Teachscape brand and more accurately build upon the ideas and values that define the company. This exercise would present a significant challenge for any organization, but Teachscape viewed it as an opportunity to rethink every aspect of its brand, from messaging to how assets would be deployed.


About the role: This Software Developer role requires a strong foundation in software development, data structures and databases. The Software Developer will lead a team of experienced developers and interface with other project developers and architects on a global basis and ensures that designs and quality are meeting GM requirements. The Software Developer will take the project from the initiation phase and see it through deployment. This role understands the value of an elegant software design and the importance of building solutions that matter. Creativity, drive, and initiative are imperative to the success of the Senior Software Developer at GM.


text:
<?php

namespace Unicity\Spring\Object\Definition {

	use \Unicity\Common;
	use \Unicity\Core;
	use \Unicity\Spring;
	use \Unicity\Throwable;

	/**
	 * This class manages the parsing of the Spring XML.
	 *
	 * @access public
	 * @class
	 * @package Spring
	 *
	 * @see https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/blob/master/spring-beans/src/main/java/org/springframework/beans/factory/xml/NamespaceHandlerSupport.java
	 * @see http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/beans/factory/xml/NamespaceHandlerSupport.html
	 * @see http://sloanseaman.com/wordpress/2012/03/26/spring-custom-tags-extensible-xml-part-1/
	 */
	class Handler extends Core\AbstractObject {

		/**
		 * This variable stores a lookup table for object definition parsers.
		 *
		 * @access public
		 * @var Common\Mutable\HashMap
		 */
		protected $parsers;

		/**
		 * This constructor initializes the class.
		 *
		 * @access public
		 */
		public function __construct() {
			$this->parsers = new Common\Mutable\HashMap();
		}

		/**
		 * This destructor ensures that any resources are properly disposed.
		 *
		 * @access public
		 */
		public function __destruct() {
			parent::__destruct();
			unset($this->parsers);
		}

		/**
		 * This method parses the specified node.
		 *
		 * @access public
		 * @param string $name                                      the name to associate with the parser
		 * @param \SimpleXMLElement $node                           the node to be parsed
		 * @return mixed                                            the object
		 * @throws Throwable\Parse\Exception                        indicates that problem occurred while
		 *                                                          parsing
		 */
		public function parse($name, \SimpleXMLElement $node) {
			return $this->parsers->getValue($name)->parse($node);
		}

		/**
		 * This method registers a parser with the specified name.
		 *
		 * @access public
		 * @param string $name                                      the name to associate with the specified
		 *                                                          parser
		 * @param Spring\Object\Definition\Parser $parser           the parser to be registered
		 */
		public function registerObjectDefinitionParser($name, Spring\Object\Definition\Parser $parser) {
			$this->parsers->putEntry($name, $parser);
		}

	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
EnergyCents - Episode 2: Energy markets in the 1970s and 2020s: Is Past Prologue?
18 June 2020 40:46 min
Media and forecasters are increasingly making past-is-prologue comparisons between the 1970s and the coming 2020s, flagging potential parallels in pandemics, protests, and presidential campaigns. What can we learn from the 1970s as we consider energy markets in the coming decade?
SUBSCRIBE: Apple | Spotify | RSS | Google Play
EnergyCents - Episode 2: Energy markets in the 1970s and 2020s: Is Past Prologue? - Transcript
Hill Vaden (00:07):
All right. Welcome to EnergyCents. The new IHS Markit podcast that looks at the intersection of energy and financial markets and works to make sense of it all with IHS Markit experts for our listeners. I'm Hill Vaden and I'm co-hosting this week with my friend and colleague, Rachel Beaver, who joins us out of London. Hey! Rachel.
Rachel Beaver (00:25):
Hi, Hill, delighted to join you. And it's a very interesting topic that we have to discuss today with two of our esteemed guests, Roger Diwan, IHS Markit vice-president of financial services, and Carlos Pascual, IHS Markit senior vice-president of global energy. Welcome to you both, gentlemen.
Carlos Pascual (00:43):
It's a pleasure-
Roger Diwan (00:44):
... to be with you. Thank you.
Welcome guys. So as you know, we discussed the topic a little bit before we get here, but the 1970s are back. I think there's maybe ... Peter Tosh's album Equal Rights is as topical as it ever was. And, just yesterday, as another example, my eight year old daughter prompted a discussion with me on my favorite songs on David Bowie's album, Diamond Dogs. But, increasingly, maybe more relevant to this podcast, media and forecasters are making past is prologue comparisons between the 'Seventies and the coming 2020s, flagging parallels that include Asia born flu-like pandemics, street protests in Western democracies and law and order presidential Republicans. Of course, there's some obvious reasons why this time is different, and the 2020s aren't going to be a complete repeat of the 1970s. Floppy disks, I don't think, anybody expects to make a comeback. The Stones won't be making any new records as good as Exile on Main Street was. And, Rachel, I trust you're not going to be breaking out your Space Hopper again in the next 10 years?
No, I think it'll be quite a sight to behold. But sticking with the past is prologue theme, it's an interesting theme, and applying it, particularly to energy markets, observations from the 1970s could apply to our expectations for the 'Twenties perhaps. For example, in the 'Seventies there were two oil shocks that limited global supply and spiked prices: In 1973 associated with the Yom Kippur war; again, in 1979 tied to the Iraq revolution; and queuing for gasoline and no gas signs are memorable for Americans as images of the 1970s. Interestingly, growing US production, I think, was associated in both eras. So you had growing oil production from Prudhoe Bay in the 'Seventies and, lately, from the Permian Basin.
So, Roger, I'm interested. Do you think that the oversupply we've seen in the last few years will continue to be a major focus for the oil markets in the decade ahead? Or do you think we'll see oil prices back from production restraint in OPEC and elsewhere?
Yeah. So I think this Seventies' prologues to the 'Twenties in oil doesn't really work. You had two supply shocks. Here we have the biggest demand shock ever. So in many ways we're at a time of extreme abundance and, as we speak right now, we have about 16 million barrels per day of spare capacity, which is exactly contrary to what we had in the 'Seventies, no spare capacity and prices rising. So I think we're in a different moment. The question that you're asking here is, "Is this moment where we create so much pain that we have not enough investment in the industry to meet demand two, three, four years down the road in a post-COVID recovery golden age?" Not '75 as you're on, but more like the early 'Sixties and the 'Fifties where everybody goes out and starts spending money and you had a big boom, an inflationary boom, if you want.
I don't see that, and I think the industry right now and the abundance of resources that we have, means that oil prices in the medium to long term are capped, actually, because at $60/$70 we can deliver a lot of resources. So oil is not likely to be the source of inflation and energy in general. Actually, I think, it might be a source of deflation.
Carlos, what do you think about that?
Well, I would say that the story of the 2020s is going to be the story of demand, as opposed to what it was in the 1970s, which was the shortages of supply. And I think, Roger, that our views coincide one another, but the critical issues that we're going to see ... What we see right now with the pandemic is that you've had a massive contraction of demand because of the inability to drive, to move, for the economy to function, to people being engaged economically. And, as a result of that, it's had a huge contraction on GDP. It's had a huge impact on oil demand. And the recovery is going to depend on how we get out of that pandemic and how demand in the world resuscitates itself again.
But that's going to translate to transition and other issues: When is peak demand going to occur? Is energy transition going to be accelerated as a result of this process? Are people going to begin to see that there is an inevitability of change and start to embrace it? How is ESG going to play into these questions? And so I think that the story that we're seeing evolve right now is a story of what is the demand for energy going to be in the future? What is the mix of that energy going to be? And at what point do we start to embrace change? Do we recognize that this change is inevitable and you embrace it and then, potentially, accelerate that transition process even further?
That's really interesting to hear you say that, Carlos, because I wonder whether ... I mean, obviously, environmentalism is an issue that was around in both decades, in both eras. In the 'Seventies the US observed Earth Day for the first time in April 1970. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency later that year and, as you've highlighted, ESG concerns continues to be high on the agenda in the 2020s and continues to be influencing policy. But I think, importantly, do you think investors in traditional energy companies share the same environmental priorities?
Well, the first thing I would do is question the wording "traditional energy company" because that's one of the things that's fundamentally changing. If you look at the international oil companies: Repsol, BP, Shell, Total, have all made commitments to net zero carbon emissions by the year 2050. That's going to mean that they're not going to look traditional after some period of time. Oil and gas is going to be part of their future for some period of time but new things are going to come into it, and then Equinor and Eni have also made extensive commitments. The US oil and gas companies are not in exactly the same space. So I think that's one piece.
The second piece of it, when you come back to the point of investors, and here I want Roger to jump in, what struck me is that investors in the end are thinking about the return that they get, but they're also thinking about volatility. And one of issues that we've seen in the past decade and we see a major concern right now, is the concern about price volatility. They want dependability. And so I think there's also going to be pressure out of investors, out of concerns that they traditionally have, that this price volatility is not good for what they're trying to do with their investment funds. And so I think we're going to see changes from both sides. Companies are going to change, investment patterns are going to change, and the interesting question that we come back to is this point that I've been thinking about a lot, is when does it get to the point where you just start hugging this, right? Because this change seems so inevitable that you feel like you have to embrace it and go with it.
Well, we are at the moment of embrace, correct? I mean, major oil companies talking about, "Net zero." This is the embrace. And I think the embrace is coming, not only out of... This is what their shareholders are asking, et cetera, I mean, this is where the future is. Technology is shifting. They're there in the energy business at the end of the day. They're not on the oil business. They need to think that they're here to deliver energy whatever form it is. The question is can they transform their portfolios to go there?
In terms of returns, as you said, Carlos, it's not clear over the last five, six years, even with the ... Particularly with the share revolution, that the returns in the oil business has been better than any other aspect of the energy chain even with lower returns like certain renewables, et cetera. But even that now, I think, would be debatable, which is what we just saw. So I think from delivering values to their shareholders they're going to need to find new business models, and oil is not the slam dunk that they had to make an arbitrage between, "Let's make money with oil or be green." That bargain doesn't exist any more. Shale has transformed that, the peak in demand, all of these issues, technology and bringing oil to the surface at $35/$40 in the United States, et cetera, et cetera, changed that debate.
But, at the same time, I think, you can't have these companies too unmoored from their societies, correct? I mean, their shareholders are pensioneers at the end of the day, and pensioneers also have values, and I think what we're seeing, with the rise of the ESG investing, how these companies present themselves, how they present their carbon footprint, how they appeal to new generation. I mean, talking to my kids about these companies, when you say, "Oil," it's a dirty word, correct? So that has to also evolve with society.
So I think it's both an issue of values and value that they will have to transition, and it's happening. The important transition for me is really happening on the capital markets, correct? I mean, this is where the pressure is coming from. It's not coming from the government in the United States. It's coming from the financial side of the business putting pressure on oil companies, saying, "Look, you don't see the criteria that are for companies that we want to invest in, in terms of returns, but also in terms of your ESG footprint." So that changes then that capital transition is actually happening probably faster than the transition in the energy mix that already exists within these companies.
And just one thing I would add to that just on the national oil companies, I mean, one of the fascinating things is that, look at the Middle East. The intent has been to use oil to reduce dependence on oil, right? To create the financial resources to facilitate diversification. And one thing I would say is watch sovereign wealth funds from the oil producing States. Watch how many of them are going to be investing in oil related activities. I bet you, even in those sovereign wealth funds, what you're going to see is a real change in their investment patterns.
Well, we saw, I guess, coming out of the back of the March market collapse, the Saudi investment fund was pretty active and bought a mix of things from the Carnival cruise line to, I think, Eni,-
... BP, and a handful of the IOCs, right? So that, in a sense, gave it more optionality but increased its exposure to oil in a way.
Well, but in a very minor way. They're both for five billion dollars of oil assets. Now, they're probably worth eight billion, so it's time to, probably, to move on. But that was really day trading almost from the sovereign wealth fund, which borrowed from the State to be able to buy cheap stocks for 20 billion dollars. So I think it was more a short term play, more than what we're seeing in the market right now, than really a longterm strategy.
Okay. Well, you both mentioned that the values of societies and of individuals, whether putting pressure on investors, putting pressure on NOCs or putting pressure on the IOCs. And, Carlos, you and I talked about this a little bit offline today and yesterday, but the 1970s was referred to by Tom Wolfe as the "Me Decade," right? And if people are going to start prioritizing some of this environmental consciousness that requires a degree of shared good or public good, one could argue that we are increasingly, as this is focused on "me", if we look at Instagram, if we look at selfies and some of the more distance from social distancing, remote learning, can we balance some of these social good efforts with a focus on "me" and will society's fascination with self help to shape energy markets in the 2020s?
Well, the first thing is I have to chastise you on your focus on the 1970s and the "Me Decade". And, as I told you before, Tom Wolfe then achieved greater clarity when he wrote Bonfires of the Vanities criticizing the 1980s as the, "Ultimate error of decadence that put the 1970s into a greater perspective of selflessness," which I'm not self-conscious about that at all since I went to high school and university during that period, and so think of myself as a relatively selfless person. So just a minor pushback on those issues.
But, look, all I think one has to do is turn on the television, look at any newspaper in the United States, look at any newsfeed that you see today and what is happening. And there is an unprecedented historic movement that we're seeing from a grassroots level protesting the death of George Floyd, the issues related to racism, to rule of law, to police brutality, to inequalities in our society. And it's brought people together in ways that we just haven't seen in decades. Where people, regardless of race, regardless of the kind of economic activity that they've been involved in, are coming out in the middle of the pandemic and are willing to say, "This has become so significant, so important, that we need to stand up and we need to say something about it."
So whatever that "me" focus may be of the 2020s, whatever the focus may be of the fascination of the selfie and being able to reflect on and convey what's happening in one's personal life, there's also a sensation there that something's been wrong, that there's been a polarization of society, which is not right, which is not just, which is not the right thing, for a better future. And so I think the fascinating thing that we're facing right now is that people are coming together and standing up and saying, "There needs to be a change," and that change is certainly related to civil rights and race and social justice in the United States. But the big question is going to be, does it extend itself further? And if we look at the energy area, to what extent is it going to underpin the way that we look at issues, such as sustainability and climate change and the importance of global participation in these movements?
Yeah, again, I have to say I am in agreement with Carlos on this one. I think, again, the 'Seventies and 'Eighties where you had boomers coming in was a very selfish culture in a way. This is a very different culture than what we have right now. And I think, yes, there is the "me" but there is also the "we", and it's very strong, I think, in terms of common good. I mean, the environmental conscience of the younger generation, of the people in their teens, twenties and thirties, I think, is much stronger than what we had in the 'Seventies. I think in the 'Seventies the environments or movements were almost a fringe movement. Here, it's not a fringe movement, not only in the United States but in Europe. I mean, green parties are in coalition everywhere in the world, all the greens are part of every party. The only place where that debate is held behind is in the United States but I think that is just a temporary issue and the US will rejoin that debate in it's right place.
When, Roger, you talked a few minutes ago about the investors putting pressure on these companies to, in a sense, become more green or show a little bit more environmental consciousness, I guess, the true skeptics would say, "A lot of that is green washing," as clients maintain more of a focus on profit. Do you see a way for ... Or in the 2020s do we see these companies and investors prioritizing some of the social good, perhaps at the expense of profit when it comes to energy?
Oh, I think, absolutely. I mean, I don't know "at the expense of profit," but I think you can bring both things together if your pricing the environmental impact, and this is what we're starting to see that through, basically, you're putting a penalty on energy. I mean, you start to see green bonds cheaper than normal bonds, correct? So you start to see that movement that doing good will allow you to do good. So there is that. And that financial transition, for me, is really the crux of the issue and how quickly are we going to de-capitalize one industry and recapitalize another one to allow this transition over the next 10-15 years? It's going to be interesting.
If you think about the ... Look what happened now. The notion that you had to subsidize a green technology or green energy to get the type of returns. I don't think it's true any more, and I think because of COVID-19 and what it's doing in terms of economic intervention by governments all over the world, it will change that debate. What can governments initiate and invest and where the private sector is going to be and how you bring these two things together? That debate is changing very quickly.
Two things that I would just add to that. One is interesting, a survey that IHS Markit did last year of a range of investors, one of the things that we found on their attitudes toward climate change and ESG is that there are two principal concerns: Social activism and regulation. Regulation, because it creates a lack of predictability about the future and what profits may be; and social activism because that influences regulation and it influences the political environment. And the point that these investors were getting at is that companies need to take action on environmental issues and an ESG because demonstrating that social consciousness is a way to, in fact, address the concerns of social activists, it's a way to mitigate regulation, it's a way to create dependability.
And so the sense was that maybe ESG might not necessarily win you an investor, but if you don't have any ESG strategy, if you don't have a story to tell about the environment, you're creating a level of risk and uncertainty that's unattractive to investors to begin with. So I think that's interesting to take as a starting point and, potentially, I think, it's something, a trend that you might see evolving further into the future.
Second [crosstalk 00:20:34].
And ... Oh, go ahead.
Let me just do this in here. And the other point which I think is important is that we're coming out of a pandemic and we have to rebuild, and there's a debate that has already started on the extent to which you can rebuild in a way which is better, right? And what is better "me?" The European Union has taken, probably, the most forward looking stance and the European Commission has essentially said that they, "Want to create the first net zero continent." Can they do that? Well, what it's challenging the political world and the policy world to do is to ask the question, "Can you create policies that are consistent with economic growth that, at the same time, reinforce investment in green technologies, renewable technologies, lower carbon emission technologies, that would, for example, in Europe, accelerate the transition from natural gas to hydrogen with the inclusion of hydrogen that would have a massive impact on the sustainability of heating in the European continent?" Right?
It's those kinds of questions that are being put on the agenda. And I think it may be hard to answer where the United States may go on these issues until after the election, but I think it's probably safe to say that if Joe Biden is elected president there is going to be a very serious debate there about what changes in policies are made internally within the United States, and I would expect that one of the first things that we would see on the first day of a Biden presidency is rejoining the Paris Agreement.
I agree on these two points. Actually, I want to add a little bit. On the second point, you're absolutely right. I think that the policy could be ... A reversal could be pretty strong, and COVID-19, actually, makes for an even stronger response, not only because, "If we're going to invest, let's invest in green," but it also has removed one of the most powerful arguments, which is, "Hey! We can't afford it." But we just decided to spend 2.3 trillion dollars for a quarter to inject into the economy. In the United States we just gave 50 billion dollars to the airline industry, of which half of it is granted, no question asked, "Do what you want with the money." Which is incredible. I mean, this is four times what we did for the auto sector in 2008 and at the time it was a loan and they paid it back and we made money on it.
So the size of the intervention here makes the critique of the green new deal very hypocritical. So I think it creates a very different space for public policy if you have a different administration because the lines of that debate have changed, even on the fiscal end.
Well, if we think about the fiscal end of it, which a lot of that would seem to be, as opposed to some of the monetary, the fiscal stimulus, would be really focused on job creation. I would think that it is a lot easier to create jobs looking backward, right? But then I know how to direct energy to somewhere about oil and gas jobs, or something like that. In some of the more emerging technologies it might be harder to create those jobs, particularly for those who need the jobs most. Is that a potential, I guess, risk here coming out of the pandemic and trying to make for a better society, is it going to be harder to direct some of those fiscal dollars to a new world, rather than preserve the old world where we can more accurately count the jobs that we lost?
That's a great question. We can spend an entire day, actually, debating around that issue, in part because it gets at this question of, particularly of digitalization and automation and artificial intelligence. And I think one thing that is important to just think about for a minute ... Look at the traditional energy company, the modern energy company and the trends within those companies and what they're needing to do. And consistently what you're seeing in all of them is moving toward digitalization or artificial intelligence as a way to reduce jobs, to reduce the number of people, and you're seeing it right now, even from a COVID-19 perspective of taking people off of platforms, right? And so if you can substitute that with technology, that's been a positive thing.
In society, more generally, I think what's happened with our nation in digitalization is part of the debate that we're not having. In effect we've got into this period of job destruction, where the gains in automation have been so great that we've lost large numbers of jobs and we don't have a clear understanding and idea of where those new jobs are going to come from. And oftentimes that issue becomes so difficult to explain or be able to resolve that what we end up saying is, "Well, let's blame it on globalization. Let's blame it on the Chinese person or the Mexican person who's going to take your job," rather than confronting the issue that the way that we work and our world of work is fundamentally changing.
So if we start from that perspective and acknowledge that this world of digitalization is transforming the way that we function and operate, we need to put aside for a second something which is real, which is that the nature of jobs in the future are going to change and that we're going to have to find ways to use that productivity in new areas to create new types of jobs that we haven't seen.
So if that's the way that we're going, does it not make sense at this point and time to be taking these resources that are being invested in fiscal stimulus and monetary programs to be able to think about, "What is that process of change that we have to undertake anyway?" Because we're in the midst of this, right? And if we need to think about jobs, we need to be thinking about jobs in a different way. Not in the traditional way of the past because so many of those jobs are going to go away. Many of the service sector jobs maybe are going to stay there where there is a direct interaction, but those jobs that can be substituted by automation are going to be jobs of the past. And what better time than right now than to be able to ask that question, "How can you facilitate and stimulate that transition?" Because how many other opportunities are we going to have where the United States is spending 15% of GDP on creating a fiscal stimulus in its economy?
I'll give you the ... Sorry. I want to give you the political answer to that question because we've seen that debate here in the last three months in the House and Senate, and I think we need to take account of the political realities in the United States. The Trump administration tried to create a stimulus for the oil and gas industry and it failed. It's one of the only sectors which was not included in the package. And the reason for that is that the Democrats in the House said, "No, we will not subsidize the oil and gas industry because of the environmental concerns that we have." And the Republican minority put back on the table the deal that they had done two years ago, which is, "Okay, let's subsidize the oil industry and we will accept subsidies for renewable energy and we will put back tax credit on the table." And the answer was, "No, that deal doesn't exist anymore. We can't draw these equivalents anymore."
So I think the political reality is that if you have Democrats holding, or the House, or the Senate or, even more, if they take the White House, the policy is going to be very different. It doesn't mean the end of oil but it means that that transition we're talking about will have the full force of the US Treasury behind it, and that's very different.
Well, and if we look, Roger, at ... So you're talking about politics, but if we think for a second about markets and transitions, again, tied to this 1970s parallel or, potentially, lack of parallel, that they were discussing, if we look at the top S&P 500 back in the 'Seventies, you saw names like Exxon, Texaco, Amoco, Gulf Oil, GE, all of whom could be classified, perhaps, as traditional energy companies. Today it's more of these technology companies, some of which Carlos has mentioned, capitalizing off remote work, artificial intelligence, Microsoft and Google. As this fiscal play comes into focus and as the 2020s move on, are we going to see "traditional energy companies" back in the top 10? Will it be more the technology companies that lead energy? I imagine a lot of this is an open question, but how does energy come back? And, what is it now? 2% of the S&P 500?
I don't know. I mean, I think it can come back when we are in a world where you have the math, correct? So I think it will reflect also the strength of the man. The oil and gas side is really very weak. So can you create an energy giant, if you want, with a very large market cap? Maybe you can, and this is what we're seeing right now when you look at the portfolios of all the IOCs. Each one of them is trying something different, right? We're in the phase where these companies have to transition, and each of them is choosing a different path. And you can see it very clearly in their portfolio, correct? What the Europeans are doing between oil, gas, energy, wind, renewables, hydrogen, et cetera, I mean, the fusion of the strategies is remarkable. So you can pick very different bets now when you are going after investing into these companies.
But it doesn't mean they're going to be the winner. I mean, what's the market capitalization of Tesla today? It's an energy company. It's not a manufacturing company. It just manufactures batteries and puts a small kit on top of it, correct? This is what it's doing. Look at the state of the day, correct? Nikola. I mean, you guys explain to me what that company was yesterday. Yesterday it's market cap was 25 billion dollars-
... which is zero revenue, correct?
Bigger than Ford.
Bigger than Ford. And its literally produces nothing and it's an energy company. And this is what it is. It's a battery leasing company, if I understand what it is, correct? So you're starting to see value creation and there's a race about who is going to be that. And this is a global race, correct? I mean, the big question we need to ask ourselves is, "Is China wedded to oil and gas?" And the answer is, "No." It's wedded to energy. It needs energy. It needs cheap energy and it's discovering it's going to need green, clean energy. And there is a race going on who's going to control these technologies? So I think the pendulum is swinging. The question is how far and how quick?
Roger, that's very interesting what you said, but I'm interested in hearing how perhaps Russia and OPEC, Russia and Saudi Arabia, are going to feed into this new world, particularly over the next decade?
Can I just one thing additionally about China, though, because one thing that's important to think about in China is that they've always looked at energy from three different perspectives: One is pollution, and it's a matter of survivability. And China being an authoritarian State, the one area that consistently has an impact on politics are perceptions of pollution and the pressures that come from the bottom up, and that's pushed partly for the transition to lower carbon solutions. It's moved coal fired power plants out of urban centers. The big factor that's supporting the process of transition.
A second issue is energy security and the dependence that they've had on imports, particularly of oil, have been a major concern for China. And so one of the issues on looking at renewable energy, connecting that with power systems, is fundamentally related to a security issue for them because this is something that can't be controlled by the outside. The wind is theirs and the sun is theirs to be able to have and the technology to build solar panels is absolutely there. And, hence, it's a way of enhancing their energy security as well.
And the third is competitiveness. And in the past oil and gas were part of the competitiveness story, but the interesting thing right now is that with technological change there's not so much of a negative aspect on renewable technologies as there were in the past. And so if you look at the country, which is potentially going to have one of the highest increases in demand for energy in the world, that's going to be driving ways in which the rest of the energy system is adapting itself in order to feed that demand, all three of those aspects, you can really see how new technology, renewable energy, are going to be part of the transitional process that's going to be pulled along by China as well. I think we need to keep that in mind.
Totally agree. To come back to your question about Saudi Arabia and Russia, I would not address the Russia part unless Carlos addresses it. He is way more competent than me. He was ambassador to Ukraine so he knows the region a little bit better than me, who has been only once.
But on the Saudi Arabia part is important because the Saudi strategy going forward is to transform its economy and, as Carlos said, is use oil to diversify other oil. To do that it needs a fairly high price to generate the type of surplus to be able to invest, both in its economy and its private sector and new technology, et cetera, et cetera, so that transition that the Crown Prince is trying to do there, the economic transformation, which has also a social transformation aspect of it, is dependent on being able to have high oil revenue to diversify away from oil. The problem is, is what type of coalition Saudi Arabia has been able to put together to achieve that outcome in the era of shale? And the answer here is it's very difficult to put together because suddenly, in the oil business, you have a market mechanism which brings supply to the fore very quickly if prices rise, correct?
So when people say, "This is the end of shale," obviously, they haven't understood shale in the first place. It's a big setback for shale, don't get me wrong, but if you have $70 oil, you'll see a lot of investors going to the shale company because they can deliver massive returns and growth at these higher and prices that Saudi Arabia would need. The question is can Saudi Arabia obtain these prices, even for a short term and when would the economic aspect of the business, shale, will benefit from that?
Ad this is where Russia comes in, correct? Saudi Arabia's trying to create the broadest coalition possible and bringing Russia in was the key objective. I don't think that, strategically, they agree on what they want to do with the oil business. I don't think Russia wants $70 oil. Carlos, you tell me if I'm right or wrong. But I think that dynamic is very temporary, which has to do with COVID right now. I mean, we saw what happened in March, and March, at the OPEC meeting when they started to fight for market share, was the true, if you want, revealer of what their strategic position is. Russia fears the growth in US supply because it gives the US also a lot of political power into the business, correct? And geopolitically. So Russia, medium size power, need oil but cannot afford shale to be the force that it was.
I'll leave it there and let Carlos debate that.
So I think the last thing that Russia wants is to see demand destruction in the oil sector because Russia economically is just, fundamentally, dependent on oil. It's had an opportunity after the collapse of the Soviet Union to make a transition. In the early years under Yeltsin it was just simply a matter of chaos and seeking to rebuild and it didn't happen there. Putin came in, oil prices rose in the following decade, and the focus was on how to gain a benefit out of those higher oil prices, but structural change didn't occur again. In the 2010s the opportunity for structural change really was bypassed once more. So one more time Russia finds itself in the situation where it's looked at three potential opportunities to use oil to facilitate that kind of diversification that you now see in the precepts of vision in 2030 in Saudi Arabia, the Abu Dhabi Vision 2030, that was published even a decade earlier than that. Russia hasn't gone through that process yet.
And, indeed, I think if there's one change that we will probably see increasingly out of Russia is that it will focus more and more into the East. The important of gas to Europe will be reduced. The important pipeline for Russia for the future are not the gas pipelines that are going in Europe, but it's going to be power of Siberia taking it into China. There are interesting geopolitical dynamics that are going to be at play here between Russia and China and how that relationship develops into the future. But in the end, I think, Russia is still going to have a difficult time of using the massive technological capacity that it has internally that could have given it a capability of being a technological giant in energy transformation. It hasn't tapped it yet. And will it do that some time in the future, and will it do that in some area outside of the nuclear realm? We still haven't seen evidence of that.
Well, maybe, Carlos, this is a good way to wrap up the podcast. And then the idea of the focus on the East that you mentioned. A lot of the comparisons in the media right now between the 2020s and the 'Seventies are really specific to Nixon and Trump. And, of course, Nixon did focus on the East, and very much opened up diplomatic relationships between the US and China, held the Moscow summit in 1972 to improve some relationships with Russia, whereas the US appears to be now shrinking from the international stage at a time when, maybe, there's a need for increased international collaboration as the world embraces, I think you said earlier, "When you start hugging it transition."
So what do we ... I mean, is this time it's different for the 2020s? Or another instance of this time it's different? Or will the US, as well, focus on the East and start to see more globalization on the back of this inward focus that we witnessed for the past four to five years?
A couple of reflections on that, Hill, and I think it's a really critical point. If we look at the pandemic it's affected 188 countries throughout the world with millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths. And one of the messages that comes out of this is that it's a global problem. Nobody can escape it. And it just underscores this inescapable inter-connectedness that we have around the world. And if that's fundamental to the world that we live in and the problems that we face, unless we're willing to look at global solutions, you fail. And if you just look at it as one nation at a time from a nationalist perspective of what happens within your borders, you also fail. And if you attempt to run diplomacy simply on a country to country basis, tackling each problem individually without the inter-connectedness of your allies and friends, you fail as well.
And so I think one of the challenges that we're going to face right now is that we're staring this reality right in the face. How do we translate that into a way that we think about the role of the United States in the world more broadly?
So a big difference with Richard Nixon was that he had Henry Kissinger, right? And Henry Kissinger understood this nature of inter-connectedness and the inter-relationships among countries. And so when you had the oil prices of the 1970s what did Kissinger do? Well, he started negotiations with the Arab producers and with Egypt and with Syria and with Israel, and he managed to get to a point where, between October of '73 and March of '74, you actually had an easing out of the oil embargo. You had, exactly as you said, the ability to think that mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons was not a particularly useful way to think about our future, and began the process of arms control and arms reduction talks and, as you cited, the importance of this engagement with China in opening up a door.
And so it doesn't mean that the United States doesn't have differences with many countries throughout the world, and, my God, we all know that we're going to still have continued differences with China. But one of the things that it does point to is that diplomacy does matter and the ability to think about who your allies are and who the key players are to get to the solutions that you have to get to in this inter-connected world, matters as well because increasingly doing it on your own is harder and harder to do and probably locks you into failure. And so I think one of the critical challenges we're going to face is recognizing the global nature of the challenge, recognizing the importance of diplomacy and reaching out, and doing it in a way where we're bringing in and doing it with allies and friends and not just seeking to do it on our own.
If I can be here on your side again, Carlos. I mean, Carlos is a diplomat, correct? So he's always going to favor diplomacy. I'm an ultimate internationalist. I own four passports and a green card. So you're going to get that answer from us. But the reality is that globalization has brought immense wealth to everybody on this planet. It has moved billions of people out of poverty. So this inter-connectedness has created immense economic wealth and inequality, and the question is how do you manage these two things going forward, fixing some aspects of it, which were very prevalent, if you want, in the Trump presidency while keeping the key benefits of it? This is what ... Can you change the supply chain in the next three years, really, and keep prices where they are? Can you increase, basically, globally, income if you stopped putting economic borders? That's a big debate but, so far, I have to say the globalists have won it economically hands down over the last 30 years.
All right. Well, Rachel, I'm hearing from these guys that all of us, while past may be prologue, this time it's different, and in the 2020s we need not look for a total repeat of the 1970s.
Well, thank you all for joining the broadcast today. I'd love to continue this conversation. Maybe we'll do it again on the 1980s for the 1990s. So maybe we'll be back.
The only thing I miss about the 1970s is really my hair.
But Exile on Main Street, really, which I think really was a classic album. So I congratulate you on your choice of music.
Well, thank you. Let's say, I've had an open debate of whether Some Girls is as Exile on Main Street. They're both from the 'Seventies and I don't think either one is going to repeat it but the Stones or anybody else in the 2020s.
Well, just remember what the other part of ... What was it? In Give Me Shelter, as the Stones were talking about the future. "It's just a shot away." So it's right in front of us.
All right. Thank you both and we'll see you next time.
Indeed. Thank you very much.
EnergyCents- Ep 60: Scope creep: Upstream sector shifts attention to emissions
EnergyCents- Ep 59: Review and resolution: Shale sector activity in 2021 and 2022
EnergyCents- Ep 58: Good COP, Bad COP: The Road from COP26
EnergyCents- Ep 57: Supply anxiety – Physical tightening gives legs to recent oil price rally
EnergyCents- Ep 56: Autumn of discontent: Europe wrestles with spiking natural gas prices
EnergyCents- Ep 55: Energy rations: China seeks balance ahead of seasonal spike in power demand
EnergyCents- Ep 54: New configurations: The practicalities of transitioning US gas and power markets
EnergyCents- Ep 53: Oil sands: Specialists seek opportunity within a more concentrated play
{"items" : [ {"name":"share","enabled":true,"desc":"<strong>Share</strong>","mobdesc":"Share","options":[ {"name":"facebook","url":"https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fpodcasts%2fenergy%2fenergy-markets-in-the-1970s-and-2020s-is-past-prologue.html","enabled":true},{"name":"twitter","url":"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fpodcasts%2fenergy%2fenergy-markets-in-the-1970s-and-2020s-is-past-prologue.html&text=EnergyCents+-+Episode+2%3a+Energy+markets+in+the+1970s+and+2020s%3a+Is+Past+Prologue%3f+%7c+IHS+Markit","enabled":true},{"name":"linkedin","url":"https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fpodcasts%2fenergy%2fenergy-markets-in-the-1970s-and-2020s-is-past-prologue.html","enabled":true},{"name":"email","url":"?subject=EnergyCents - Episode 2: Energy markets in the 1970s and 2020s: Is Past Prologue? | IHS Markit&body=http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fpodcasts%2fenergy%2fenergy-markets-in-the-1970s-and-2020s-is-past-prologue.html","enabled":true},{"name":"whatsapp","url":"https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=EnergyCents+-+Episode+2%3a+Energy+markets+in+the+1970s+and+2020s%3a+Is+Past+Prologue%3f+%7c+IHS+Markit http%3a%2f%2fihsmarkit.com%2fpodcasts%2fenergy%2fenergy-markets-in-the-1970s-and-2020s-is-past-prologue.html","enabled":true}]}, {"name":"rtt","enabled":true,"mobdesc":"Top"} ]}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In this episode of Internet Business Mastery, we talk about 5 product creation tips that will boost your bottom line. And in the quick tip, we share a resource to help you get press from big media.
Ha! I love it. This totally cracked me up. Thank you for sharing. This qualifies as a movie moment. I can see a Seth Rogan character doing this :).
Fantastic episode and super timely for me, since I just finished producing a 30-day intensive course for my subscribers, and I faced a number of these issues – how much content is too much? What's too advanced? Why are only half of them getting to the end of the course?!
Although a few people have written to me saying they enjoyed it, I think I'll touch base with everyone asking about the content volume/pace and what was most/least helpful.
Excellent plan. You'll get great insights. Glad we could help.


LondonJazz News: What drew you first to the piano?
Frank Harrison: My sister was taking piano lessons so we had an old Victorian upright in the house. One holiday when I was 11 we listened to a lot of Billie Holiday, and I really liked the melodies and harmonies in those tunes. So when I got home I started trying to figure them out.
LJN: Who was the teacher who left the biggest mark on you?
FH: Peter Pettinger. He was a great classical pianist but also loved jazz. He introduced me to Bill Evans (of whom he wrote a brilliant biography) and that was a big revelation. Although he knew a lot of jazz theory, he took Bill's attitude towards tuition: that you can show someone some chords, or a melodic or rhythmic idea, but then they're just borrowing it from you. But if you let them find it for themselves, it's theirs. So we talked about bigger things – the sound you get from the instrument, the overall shape of a solo. He taught me to focus on those things rather than on individual notes.
LJN: Was there a sequence in the way you got to know jazz after that?
FH: Yes – actually from Billie Holiday onwards I worked pretty much chronologically. I needed to hear each movement of jazz before I understood the next. I remember loving Blue Trane but hating A Love Supreme! Since then I feel like my musical life has been about removing those set ideas about what I like and don't like, and becoming open to more and more music.
LJN: When I hear your playing I always find there is a strong melodic line and logic. Is that something that's important to you?
FH: Yes. I try to play what I hear rather than what my conscious brain might come up with. I think that way you're more in tune with the listener too – if you want a break in the line, they're probably ready for one too. I think that's something that Peter instilled in me from early on.
LJN: You're a pianist of choice in a number of other bands, right?
FH: I guess so! I've got a few projects on the go at the moment. I've been playing with Gilad Atzmon's Orient House Ensemble for fourteen years now and we'll be touring a new album from January. I think it's our strongest one so far. And I've just finished a tour with the Sirkis/Bialis International Quartet, which was a great experience. Asaf and Sylwia wrote some very deep music for that band, it's unlike anything else I've played or heard. Now I'm starting a tour with Tommaso Starace playing music he composed for the photos of Gianni Berengo Gardin. It's great – very melodic, and with a lot of humour. And I've got a new duo album with singer Edith van den Heuvel about to come out. I'm really happy with that one, it's very intimate and beautifully recorded.
LJN: How long have you been working with Enzo Zirilli and Dave Whitford?
FH: We started playing together a couple of years ago. They're both incredibly inspiring musicians to work with. Enzo kind of fits into Louis Armstrong's definition of jazz: he never plays the same way once. He's always improvising, always searching, and finds some very beautiful and unusual places. Dave is my ideal bass player. He's got a perfect balance of rooting things when they need to be rooted, combined with a lot of freedom. Like Enzo, there's no ego there – he just listens and plays what needs to be played.
LJN: How is this album is different from your others?
FH: The biggest difference is that it's live! Our previous albums have always involved a lot of preparation, finding the right studio, writing and rehearsing the music… This one was never intended to be an album. We were on tour promoting our Lunaris album and I stuck my digital recorder on stage just to have my own record of what we were doing. But when I listened back to our gig at The Verdict in Brighton I heard something that's very hard to capture in the studio. Playing close together in a great room and to an attentive audience lets you take risks, and - importantly - have fun. You're not making judgments about what's happening, you're not wondering "is this the take"? You're just listening and responding, so the music really plays itself.
We then spent a day in the studio mastering it – polishing it as much as we could, trying to bring the piano out a bit… The end result isn't something that ECM would release but there's something nice and honest about it.
LJN: In what formats are you making it available?
FH: Since it was free to record, I decided to make the MP3 version of the album free to download. But as some people still like physical objects, we also printed a CD with a bonus track.
LJN: What gigs have you got coming up?
FH: We've got a couple of gigs in December to celebrate the new album. On the 3rd we're at the Albion Beatnik in Oxford (the bonus track on the CD was from a gig we did in Oxford). And then on December 12th we're back at The Verdict in Brighton. We'll also be doing a London launch in the spring.


text:
World Ballet Day is an annual celebration of ballet held since 2014 in October. It is a collaboration between major ballet companies around the world, which stream live video of their behind-the-scenes preparations in their respective time zones. Other companies and schools hold local celebrations. Lead co-producer is the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, London.

The companies which contribute to the live stream are:
 The Australian Ballet
 Bolshoi Ballet
 The Royal Ballet
 The National Ballet of Canada
 San Francisco Ballet
 Royal Swedish Ballet

The date of World Ballet Day since its inception in 2014 has been:
 1 October 2014
 1 October 2015
 4 October 2016
 5 October 2017
 2 October 2018
 23 October 2019
 29 October 2020
 21 October 2021
 2 November 2022

References

External links
 Official site

 ballet
October observances
 Unofficial observances
 International observances

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


"Exceeding Expectations, But Never your Budget!" Family Owned and Operated. Proudly Serving the Bay Area with Over 25 Years of Experience. We Specialize in Residential Electrical Work. Lighting, Smoke Detectors, Outlet & Switch Rewiring Panels, Breakers & Fuses, Remodels, Repairs, New Construction and More! You are our Top Priority, Which is how we've Kept Our Excellent Rating with the BBB for Years. Call Now for a Free Estimate.
Serving the Bay Area With Over 10 Years of Experience. Specializing in Commercial Electrical Work, but Experts in Residential Work as well. Our Knowledgeable and Friendly Staff Will Provide the Expertise you Require for all Your Electrical Needs. We are Available on Service Calls 24 Hours a Day to Meet the Convenience of your Schedule. Our Job is Not Done Until you are 100% Satisfied with our Work.


text:
Mikko Mäkelä kan avse:

 Mikko Mäkelä (bibliotekarie)
 Mikko Mäkelä (ishockeyspelare)


text:
DEAN, James Anderson
Hardware assistant
Married. Four children
Mrs A. J. DEAN (wife), 16 Dee Street, Timaru
13th Reinforcements, J Company
Tofua
Western European 1916-1917
British War Medal (1914-1918); Victory Medal (1914-1918); New Zealand War Service Medal (1939-1945)
WWI - 31 July 1918
Municipal employee
James Anderson Dean was the youngest son of John and Emma (née Bathurst) Dean. He married Ada Jane Bracefield in 1902. They had four children - Eric Raymond born in 1902, Elise Inez born in 1903, James Uglow Jonathan born in 1905, and John Seddon born in 1906.
Departing for the war in May 1916, Second Lietutenant Dean transferred to the 1st Canterbury Company in April 1916. In September he was seconded for training for the Machine Gun Company, reporting for duty with the unit in November, the same month he was promoted to full Lieutenant. Lieutenant J. A. Dean, 13388, Timaru, returned to New Zealand in March 1918 in Draft 149.
Dean also served in the Second World War, claiming a several birth dates (1888 and 1892 at least), possibly to avoid disqualification due to his age. Serving in New Zealand form April 1940, Dean again was promoted from Second Lieutenant to full Lieutenenat while serving as an adjutant fro the NZTS.
James Anderson Dean died in Christchurch in 1952.
Auckland War Memorial Museum Cenotaph Database [05 February 2017]; Evening Post, 13 March 1918 (Papers Past) [04 February 2017]; SCRoll web submission by C Dean, 6 December 2018
Auckland War Memorial Museum Cenotaph record
Military personnel file
Other military personnel file


text:
Home > News > Three Yale nurses receive Nightingale Awards
Three Yale nurses receive Nightingale Awards
Three nurses from Yale were honored with Nightingale Awards for Excellence in Nursing, at the annual award ceremony on May 3 in New Haven. Dr. Monica Ordway, assistant professor of nursing; Dr. Andrée de Lisser, lecturer in the psychiatric and mental health nurse practitioner specialty; and Jennifer Espinoza, MSN'19, who was a recipient of the student scholarship award.
They were each individually recognized and invited on stage to receive a certificate of recognition, a Nightingale insignia lapel pin, and a commemorative gift. A nurse can only be nominated once in their lifetime for this award.
The program was developed in 2001 out of a desire to celebrate and elevate the nursing profession. As a nursing organization with more than a century of service, the Visiting Nurse Association of South Central Connecticut (VNA South Central) took the lead in creating the award ceremony. The Nightingale vision was quickly embraced by the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, Yale-New Haven Hospital and The Hospital of Saint Raphael, whose financial support brought the idea to fruition.
In 2003, the program grew to include concurrent galas in the Hartford, Norwich-New London, and Stamford regions, as well as the original program in New Haven. The Nightingale Awards for Excellence in Nursing is open and inclusive of all health care settings—hospitals, home health care, health centers, schools, health departments, long-term care, nursing schools, medical practices and more - all are warmly invited to participate. RNs and LPNs (full or part-time) who demonstrate excellence may be considered for recognition if they are involved in clinical practice, leadership, and/or education.


Oliver Appointed Artistic Director of Juventas!
The Recording Academy has recognized Oliver's work in the field with a voting membership. He'll have the honor of voting on Grammy Awards in the top categories, as well as classical field specialties.


text:
Discover Industrial Space for Rent in Santa Ana, CA
Browse Industrial Space for Lease in Santa Ana, CA
Brewster (CA)
Butte (CA)
Duval (CA)
El Dorado (CA)
Humboldt (CA)
Imperial (CA)
Modoc (CA)
San Benito (CA)
San Joaquin (CA)
San Mateo (CA)
Yuba (CA)
All Orange County, CA Cities
John Wayne Airport Area
There are currently 62 industrial spaces available for lease in Santa Ana, CA.
The Santa Ana industrial for rent market is approximately 29.9 million square feet of space with an industrial real estate vacancy rate of 3.24%. Orange County, CA has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the nation, making it very difficult for tenants rent Industrial property. Santa Ana, CA has the most Industrial Space square footage near the Airport Area of OC, which has 1,700,838 square feet available as of Q3 2018.
The asking rent rate for Industrial Space in Santa Ana is on average $0.88 per square feet. Pricier areas of Orange County include cities in South County, which has an average Industrial rental rate of $1.01 per square feet. More affordable areas of Orange County are cities located in North County - the industrial rental rate is on average $0.88 per square feet.
As of Q2 2018, Orange County has a 2.6% unemployment rate and has added 17,300 jobs.
2901 W MacArthur, Santa Ana, CA 92704
Industrial, Office, Warehouse
2036 E Dyer Rd, Santa Ana, CA 92705
2 Listings Available
32,500 – 42,500 SF
Land, Industrial, Warehouse
1801 Carnegie Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Industrial, Warehouse
818 E Walnut St, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Industrial, Land, Warehouse
1909 S Susan St, Santa Ana, CA 92704
2644 S Croddy Way, Santa Ana, CA 92704
2711 South Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA
1,000 – 35,650 SF
2107 S Main St, Santa Ana, CA 92707
2202 S Huron Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92704
2001-2009 S Grand Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705
2701 S Harbor Blvd, Santa Ana, CA 92704
2003 S Grand Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705
1,024 – 3,068 SF
938 E First Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701
3401 W MacArthur Blvd, Santa Ana, CA 92704
1262-1264 S Lyon St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
1235 S Wright St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
922 - 926 S Lyon St, Santa Ana, CA 92701
20,400 – 115,895 SF
Industrial, Warehouse, Land
1242 S Lyon St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
3130 S Fairview St, Santa Ana, CA 92704
Industrial, Warehouse, Office
111 W Dyer Road, Santa Ana, CA 92707
1900 E Warner, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Displaying 1 - 25 of 62 in total
View Warehouses for Rent in Other Markets
Aliso Viejo, CA
Foothill Ranch, CA
Irvine Spectrum, CA
John Wayne Airport Area, CA
Laguna Hills, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Los Alamitos, CA
San Juan Capistrano, CA
View Warehouses for Sale in Other Markets
La Palma, CA
OVERVIEW OF THE SANTA ANA WAREHOUSE SPACE MARKET
Santa Ana Industrial and Warehouse Rental Market
Santa Ana, CA is one of the largest industrial space markets in Orange County and has roughly 29.9 million square feet of space to lease. The city of Santa Ana is located by John Wayne Airport Area of OC, close to the cities such as Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, and Tustin. The industrial property market in Orange County has been reported to have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the nation making it super competitive for tenants to lease space. The average industrial rental rate in Santa Ana is $0.88 psf. Popular areas to lease industrial space are cities in North County, such as Anaheim, Orange, Fullerton, La Habra, Brea, and Buena Park — this is also the most affordable industrial space market in Orange County. Other popular cities, however more expensive, include Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Irvine, and Huntington Beach.
New Industrial & Warehouse Space for Rent Under Construction in Santa Ana, CA
As of Q3 2018, Voit Real Estate reports there are 1,267,384 square feet of Industrial space under construction in Orange County — none were reported to be in Santa Ana, CA. Most of these new industrial space developments are located in North Orange County. New industrial construction projects underway were Panattoni's Orange County Commerce Center in Anaheim consisting of 232,000 square feet. It was also reported that Beckman Business Center in Fullerton, CA was being redeveloped and would be completed in late 2018, which is a 934K square foot Industrial redevelopment.
Santa Ana, CA Largest Industrial Space Transactions in Q2, 2018
Most of OC's largest industrial transactions took place in North County in cities such as Buena Park, Placentia, Brea, and Anaheim. The largest industrial sales transaction was a 212K square foot building in Santa Ana, CA. The largest lease transaction was a 102K SF Industrial building subleased by Shasta in Buena Park, CA.


Opened in 1999, the Soda Aquatic Center is one of the premier aquatic facilities in Northern California. With a 50-meter, Olympic size pool, team room and locker rooms, Soda has been a favorite location of Elite Polo coaches and campers since inception in 2007. Elite Polo is happy to call Soda our home again this winter.
Matt Flesher, a standout water polo player at UCLA who has been an assistant coach for both the Bruins' men's and women's water polo programs the past four years, is the new head assistant coach for the Cal women's water polo team.
This past Flesher helped guide the UCLA women to their fifth consecutive NCAA title with a 5-4 victory over No. 1 seed USC. In his three seasons working with the Bruin women, UCLA compiled a 93-8 record, including a perfect 33-0 mark in 2008. During Flesher's time assisting the Bruins, two players were the recipients of the Peter J. Cutino Award (named after the legendary Cal men's water polo coach) as the national player of the year, 17 players were named All-Americans and 21 athletes were selected All-Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.
In assisting the UCLA men's water polo program, Flesher helped the Bruins to a 75-29 mark from 2005-08, coaching 19 players who were selected All-American and All-MPSF. In 2006, he was the head coach of the Los Angeles Water Polo Club's 16-Under boy's team that won the U.S. Water Polo National Championship.
As a collegiate player from 1999-2002, Flesher was a member of UCLA's back-to-back national champions in 1999 and 2000. He was a two-time All-American and was twice named All-MPSF, finishing his college career with 81 goals. Flesher earned his degree in political science from UCLA in 2002.
Prior to coaching at UCLA, Flesher spent three seasons as a member of the U.S. National Team, competing at the 2003 World University Games and helping Team USA qualify for the 2005 World Championships. He also competed professionally for the Greek team, Ethnikos-Pireaus, in 2003 and 2004. Flesher was the head boy's swimming coach and assistant boy's water polo coach at Corona Del Mar High School in 2004-05 as well.
James is in his second season as head coach at University of the Pacific. James will continue to build on a Tiger program which has consistently been a force in the college ranks. The 2007 squad finished the year ranked No. 13 in the nation, while the 2006 Tigers finished with a record of 19-14 and a No. 7 national ranking. Since 2001, Pacific has produced 13 All-Americans and 16 all-conference student athletes.
From 2005-07, James served as the assistant coach for the United States National Youth Team, and recently traveled to Europe with the USA Men's Senior National Team as a part of their staff for the World Super Finals. James has been the head coach for the National 2-Meter Development Camp and Holiday Camp held at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Col., over the past three years.
Prior to Pacific, Graham spent the past five seasons at Santa Rosa Junior College, building the Bear Cubs into a state power at the JC level. He led Santa Rosa JC to a record of 86-50-1 over his five years, including a third place finish at the California State Championships in 2007. The third place finish was the highest in school history, coming on the heels of a Big 8 Conference championship. For his efforts in 2007, he was named Big 8 Conference Coach of the Year. He won the same award in 2006, in addition to Northern California Coach of the Year honors, after leading the Bear Cubs to the Northern California championship.
Four-year Aggie letterwinner Danny Driscoll replaces his No. 17 cap with a coach's polo, taking over as Coach Doten's assistant for the 2009 season.
A prep All-American at De La Salle High School, Driscoll was the only true freshman to earn playing time in 2005. Over the course of his career, he scored 34 goals with 32 assists offensively, while ranking among team leaders with 77 lifetime steals.
As a senior in 2008, he logged a team-high 627 minutes, delivering career-high numbers in goals (14), assists (13), steals (24) and drawn exclusions (17).
Driscoll, who is completing his undergraduate degree in managerial economics, is one of three brothers to compete in aquatic sports at UC Davis. The oldest, Ryan, was an Aggie swimmer from 2002 to 2005. Danny's younger brother, Kevin, is currently a freshman with the UC Davis water polo team.