Poetry in a Nutshell

Poetry is more than just rhyming and prose that is in meters and verse. It is an art form. It is something that can not be judged by its cover and can not be critisized to the point where it just “sucks.” Poetry is about expression. Poetry expresses the way we feel on a certain subject through imagery and other senses. It helps us deal with our daily problems, be it good or bad.

The emotion which is put within the poem brings it life. A poem without emotion is not a poem at all but simply prose. Poetry is what makes us feel happy or sad, mad or gleeful, loving or broken hearted. Poetry is life on paper. It does not need to be of a certain subject or even rhyme.

Poetry is poetry. It has its own mind. If it flows good if not… it needs work. The rules can be bent but not broken. Our life is our life and no one can tell us what we have been through but ourselves. We know best not some stranger reading our poems. Our poetry is our life, not what someone says.

Rhyming in poetry is not always the best way to express yourself. Rhyming actually takes away many words that could have been used. If you try to rhyme it cuts your dictionary into little pieces. It doesn’t need to be this way, choose flow over rhyme.

As a result of this, poetry is defined as a way of putting flowing words together in meter and verse to show emotion or tell a story.

Filed under Uncategorized | Tags: art, emotio, forms, meters, poems, poetry, rhymes, rhyming, verse, verses, what is poetry, writing | Comments Off

Is This Uranium Bull Market For Real?

In light of Toshibas recent proposed acquisition of Westinghouse Electric from the government-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), historians may be reminded of former Westinghouse Chairman Robert Kirbys litigious international outcry and prolonged battle over secretive and illegal price manipulation by a global uranium cartel. In the 1970s, Westinghouse, determined to capture the world market of building nuclear reactors, offered dirt-cheap nuclear fuel as part of its incentive to get sales from utility companies. The companys 27 utility customers had locked in agreements with Westinghouse to provide them with 65 million pounds of U3O8 over the next twenty years, well into the 1990s. Those contracts set off one of the most curious legal battles of the 1970s, ultimately reducing Westinghouse to a shell of the powerhouse it once was.

In recent weeks, Toshiba (London Stock Exchange: TOS; Tokyo Stock Exchange Ticker Code: 6502) has been strongly criticized for the Westinghouse acquisition, and may sell as much as 49 percent of the deal to two other Japanese firms and a smaller stake to an American firm. Toshibas CFO, Sadazumi Ryu said the company would pay for some of its acquisition costs within three years out of current cash flow plus float debt to about 115 percent of equity. Will Toshiba repeat the mistakes made by Westinghouse in the mid 1970s during the last uranium bull market?

Today, Toshiba aims its sights on the lucrative Chinese nuclear energy market, which on the surface appears more ambitious than the U.S. civilian nuclear program of the 1970s. Toshiba wants to be a major beneficiary of Chinas aggressive plans to expand the countrys nuclear energy program. And why not? Uranium prices have soared the past few years. Spot uranium rocketed in 2005 at an even faster degree than in 1975. That was the year when Westinghouses Robert Kirby was told by his doctor to not even bother giving up his chain-smoking habit. Things at Westinghouse had gotten that bad.

The head of the Pittsburgh-based conglomerate failed to grasp what was behind the escalating uranium price during the 1970s. His Westinghouse incentive plan sounded great when spot uranium sold for $6/pound. However, at $40/pound, Westinghouse got stuck with potential liabilities of more than $2 billion (1970s dollars) because of his offer to provide the utilities with cheap fuel. By July 1975, Kirby began blaming the worlds uranium cartel, which he believed manipulated the spot price higher to piggyback his companys development plans. Across from Kirbys offices in Pittsburghs Golden Triangle were the offices of Gulf Oil, a uranium supplier, whom he believed to be a member of the uranium cartel. By September 1975, Westinghouse announced a shortfall of 25,000 metric tons of uranium, and claimed commercial impracticability in honoring its nuclear fuel commitments to the 27 utilities. And the lawsuits began.

According to a special report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kirbys suspicions heightened when, in late 1976, he received copies of documents suggesting Gulf and 28 other suppliers had conspired to form a cartel to keep Westinghouse out of the uranium business. The documents were the minutes of a private meeting of uranium suppliers held in Australia. In a bizarre twist of fate, the whistleblower came in the form of Friends of the Earth, which offered Westinghouse additional documents if the nuclear power plant manufacturer would help the environmental group release jailed members in the Philippines. Kirby ran with what he had, ignoring their request, and began a course of intense litigation. The lawsuits were eventually consolidated and heard in a federal district court in Virginia. During the course of the litigation, Westinghouse took its grievances to Londons House of Lords, setting international case law about the discovery process in litigations.

What really happened in the 1970s?

Kirby and Westinghouse were caught up in an international trade dispute, during a world revival of the uranium market. Uranium prices had collapsed in December 1959 when the U.S. government placed an embargo on the purchase of foreign uranium for domestic purposes. The embargo came after the nuclear weapons build-up of the 1950s had peaked. In 1959 alone, the U.S. bought 20,000 metric tonnes of uranium for the countrys weapon procurement program, about 61 percent from Canada. Within a week after the embargo, global uranium prices fell by 75 percent. Twenty-four out of the 28 Canadian uranium producers and processors left the business.

Two Canadian crown corporations remained with viable uranium assets to mine and sell. Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd had stakes in mines at Port Radium, Key Lake and Rabbit Lake. The provincially owned Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation owned had stakes in Key Lake, Cluff Lake and Down Lake. Before 1942, Eldorado Mining (later re-named El Dorado Nuclear Ltd) had been a privately owned radium company, which in that year was taken over by the Canadian government and made into a crown corporation. During World War II and for the next decade, the companys raison detre was to produce uranium for the U.S. and U.K. nuclear weapons programs.

By 1956, both countries looked elsewhere for their uranium. By 1965, Canadas production plummeted to 3,000 tonnes from a peak of 12, 000 tonnes annum in 1959. Canadas uranium exploration came to a standstill, and only three mines remained operational. Boom town Elliot Lake became a ghost town. Lacking buyers, a self-serving Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson announced in 1965 that Canadas exported uranium would only be used for peaceful purposes only. Nearly a year earlier, the U.S. government had banned the enrichment of foreign uranium for domestic use, pre-empting any newsworthy value to Pearsons announcement.

Between 1964 and 1967, more than sixty nuclear reactors were ordered for the U.S. civilian nuclear energy program. Westinghouses newly designed light-water reactor created excitement within the industry. During that time, Canadian uranium exploration was taken out of mothballs and production resumed. Hardball shenanigans in Washington kept the uranium ban intact, and global uranium prices reached an all-time nadir of $4/pound. Canada was shut out of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle market, and Ottawa was forced to stockpile a reported $100 million of uranium during the Nixon presidential administration. By late 1971, Prime Minister Trudeaus cabinet had reached the end of their rope failing at every step to remove the ban by diplomatic means.

News reports suggest a number of uranium-heavy countries held an initial meeting in Paris in February 1972 to establish a uranium-producers alliance, in essence a de facto uranium cartel. Others suggest it was formed in April 1972, after the Canadian government reportedly gave its blessing. Canadian author Gordon Edwards (Canadas Nuclear History) bluntly wrote, The purpose of the cartel was to secretly manipulate world uranium prices using a phony bidding system. Hidden quotas were established by representatives from Canada, France, Australia, South Africa and Rio Tinto Zinc (London Stock Exchange: RIO). Namibia and Niger were also included in the alliance, as was Gulf Oil, at least according to Robert Kirby of Westinghouse.

When the U.S. government re-affirmed its trade embargo in March of that year, a subsequent uranium cartel meeting took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in May 1972. At an Ottawa conference on May 28, 1972, it was reported that Jack Austin, then deputy minister of energy, voiced his concern the cartel could be considered illegal under Canadian law. Nonetheless, the politicians gave the uranium cartel a green light.

The alleged price manipulation was paying off. In 1973, the spot uranium price doubled. By 1976, it doubled again and stayed above $40/pound for nearly four years. It was around that time the alleged cartel disbanded to avoid international anti-trust laws, which Westinghouse was arguing after unleashing a tsunami of litigation. Westinghouse was desperate to escape its liability over the promise of cheap uranium to utilities. In March 1976, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating possible infringements of U.S. anti-trust laws by the alliance of uranium producers. By mid 1977, a federal grand jury had been formed to pursue the investigations and possibly initiate criminal proceedings.

In a letter dated July 12, 1977, the U.S. Attorney-General wrote to the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, explaining the quandary this international episode had caused and discussed invoking immunity to obtain witnesses who would talk about the alleged conspiracy:

These persons are not likely to come within the personal jurisdiction of the United States courts so long as the Department of Justice continues a sitting grand jury investigation of the international uranium industry; (3) These persons are British subjects and we have determined that it is highly unlikely that their testimony could be obtained through existing arrangements for law enforcement co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom; (4) The Department of Justice has been largely unable to obtain information from these foreign persons about the subject matter of this investigation

By mid 1978, Westinghouse Electrics complaint against Rio Tinto Zinc in the United Kingdom floundered in that countrys court system. Obtaining evidence in England was markedly different from the U.S. style of depositions.

Conclusion

During this litigious period, Westinghouse settled with several utilities, but continued to pursue the lawsuits. By 1979, Judge Merhige in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, ordered Westinghouse and the utilities to equitably resolve their differences. Westinghouse agreed to concessions that ultimately cost the company nearly $1 billion, but locked up the utilities as long-term customers by providing parts and engineering services for up to 25 years. In quiet out-of-court settlements, the uranium suppliers paid Westinghouse nearly $100 million and supplied the company with uranium.

Besides, there was another cartel in the 1970s, which posed a far greater risk to the developed nations. From the oil embargo, which began 1973 and throughout the decade, the OPEC oil cartel overshadowed the tiny uranium cartel. Saudi King Faisals oil sword had a far greater impact on the energy climate, Gross Domestic Product, inflation and quality of lifestyles, than an anxious alliance of uranium producers trying to meet production costs and peddle stockpiled inventory at higher prices. Not only was the oil crisis a more serious affair, but another un-related episode tanked the price of uranium.

Just as the decade was coming to a close, on March 28, 1979, a water pump broke down at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, about ten miles southeast of the Pennsylvania state capital. It was an unexpected event, heightened Hollywood-style, as the accident coincided with the opening of a new movie called The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon. In short order, many Americans were persuaded that events within the movie were somehow related to the Three Mile Island event. This was a Hollywood PR mans dream. Fanning the media flames to capture a larger box office gross, a basically nothing episode (in terms of loss of human life, since no one died from the reactor accident) was transformed into an earth-shattering campaign against the entire nuclear energy industry. Ironically, more died in the movie (one, Jack Lemmons character) than as a direct result of the Three Mile Island accident (0 reportedly died).

Hysterical commentary from that era bespoke of a nuclear accident, which would melt down to the earths core, as one character in the movie suggested. Unable to distinguish what was movie fiction from scientific reality, the movies message left a horrifying memory in the collective minds of the general populace. A general panic followed, and nuclear energy was badly tainted by the accident. As the momentum for building U.S. nuclear power plants came to a grinding halt, overflowing inventories for the raw material to fuel those power plants had once again nullified the uranium exploration and mining sector. It took more than two decades to draw down those built-up uranium inventories, about as long as it has taken for the public to once again accept nuclear energy as a safer, cleaner alternative to fossil-fuel powered electricity.

Why is todays uranium bull market different? Is the current and spectacular rise in spot uranium prices different today than it was in the early to mid 1970s, when an alleged uranium cartel reportedly bid up prices to an artificial level? Is that same factor occurring during the current steep rise in the spot price of uranium? Will Toshiba sink into the same quicksand, during the balance of this decade, as Westinghouse Electric once did?

(To Be Continued)

Filed under Uncategorized | Tags: commodities, energy, investing, stock market, stock tips, stock tradin, utilities | Comments Off

Using Low Grades As Assets In Admission Essays For College Or Mba School

You are seriously aiming to apply to the college or business school of your choice. You have taken the required tests, and now, you are ready for the grueling application process. In particular, you need to pay attention to the College Admission Essay, or MBA essay as part of your application, since the college admission essay or MBA essay allows you to explain certain weaknesses in your grades. Many colleges and universities still have reservations on admitting applicants whose school records contain grades that they consider low as per their standards. And this is your big dilemma. How to explain your low grades. This is where the College Admission Essay or MBA essay will play a vital role.

In cases where you unfortunately received a bad grade, the best thing to do is to give a valid and genuine reason. Do not ignore it, but address it head on. In the college admission essay or MBA essay you have the golden opportunity to explain your low grades and provide rational reasons on why these grades are not necessarily reflective on your potential as a student. Offer a specific example to explain your side of the issue. For instance, you can say that personal problems (sick family member or unexpected accident) kept you from focusing more on your studies.

Just try to keep in mind that your aim in your explanation in the admission essay or MBA essay is not to make excuses nor create tall tales to cover the fact that you have a low grade in one or two subject areas. The goal is to emphasize the reality that the bad grade was not because you failed to study but because circumstances were simply beyond your control. Make it a point to stress that it was just a temporary setback and that overall, your school record is still academically excellent, and that you are worthy of admission to the school of your choice. In fact, you may want to explain how such unexpected experiences actually made you into a better person, a more mature and understanding person, who now appreciates life more and is more driven than ever before. Your primary goal should be to convey to the reader that you are a better person as a result of your personal experiences, which in turn make you a better candidate for admission.

Also, remember that different schools place different weights on test scores or grades and may emphasize your college admission essay or MBA essay instead. Rather, they look more into your extracurricular activities since the approach of their program is the total development of an individual. In such cases, lower grades may not be as crucial in the admissions process, but you should still aim to explain them as best as you can, and doing so can best be done in the College Admission Essay or MBA essay.

Filed under Uncategorized | Tags: colleg, college admission essay, mba, mba essay | Comments Off

Unusual Allergic Reactions

I have, in my third and fourth decades of living, discovered some of the most unusual of allergic reactions and have learned the most interesting of realities about allergies.

The education began when I was teaching my second semester of college English. As one up to that point who rarely missed a day of work, I was appalled to find one very early summer morning that I had an enflamed face and that every pore on my face had filled with a blistera tiny pustule that was, as if the redness wasnt enough, itchy.

When I went to the clinic (not yet having medical coverage of any kind), the clinician seemed nonplussed. She told me with a shrug that 1) I would have to experiment by isolating foods in my most recent diet until I found the culprit (since I ha not changed laundry or body soaps didnt add any chemicals or perfumes to my repertoire, etc.); and 2) I had developed these allergic reactionsor allergic symptomsall of a suddenthat my perfect health record of many years had nothing to do with the fact that as we get older, she said, we can pathogenically change: we can develop allergies to foods we have eaten our whole lives.

Allergic reactions as I describe are no big deal, really; and a tube of Benadryl cream and a Benadryl capsule (which makes you sleep, so watch out) are all that were needed. But other allergic reactions are hideous, drastic, and emergent. Many require immediate medical attention, as they are deadlyor, the allergens causing the allergic reactions are.

When we were teens working our first jobs, waiting tables at a private school in the summer, when scientists would come from the world over to have conferences, study, and get fed three times a day, we witnessed the more extreme cases of allergic reactions when a scientist asked if there were any shellfish in the fare we were serving. The stuffing of the meat, it turned out, had shredded somethingcrab or lobsterand the man swelled, turned red, and had to be rushed to the hospital. What is most frightening, I think, is that such allergic reactions can include the tongue swelling. Think about it. If your tongue swells too far, it will block your breathing passages. Youre done.

In my case, many years after my fear that we had killed an important personwho showed up unshaken the next morning, by the wayit turns out I had allergic reactions to soy products: I loved to (and was so lazy about cooking that I would) eat raw hot dogs. At the same time, I was experimenting with health food store items and had drunk a big glass of soy milk. Imagine: an innocuous little thing like a bean.

Filed under Uncategorized | Tags: Allergic Reaction | Comments Off