A friend just called me to say that he had scrolled through his TV to find the news, and had discovered that the nine major networks had set aside 3 hours of broadcasting to cover Michael Jackson's funeral.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Calfornia's bonds now near "junk" status
CNNMoney.com is now reporting that Fitch has reduced California's debt to a rating of BBB, just shy of "junk" status. And they are still on "watch" for further downgrade. The other ratings agencies still have California rated higher, but one must remember that they rated all that subprime paper that has defaulted AAA up until the day it all crashed.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Who killed California's economy?
There's a good article at Forbes by Joel Kotkin that tries to answer that. He points out 5 suspects: the governor, the public employees, the environmentalists, the business community, and the public.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
Wondering why
Starting the blogging day today wondering why Obama gets along better with dictators and tyrants that are our enemies than he does with democratically elected friends of the United States, particularly those in Britain, Germany and Israel.
Monday, July 6, 2009
July 6, 2009
Doing away with independent Inspectors General? It certainly looks like it. The Washington Post has the story.
Obama has already run off three of them, illegally, of course. The guy in charge of "hope and change" turns out to be another corrupt Chicago pol. No surprise except to those who drank the Koolaid.
The South Plainsman
The Best of the Web with James Taranto follows up my initial question of the day about Honduras with one of his own.
After the following quote from Rosalinda Cruz, a Justice on the Honduran Supreme Court:
"The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order," Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. "There's no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.",
he asks his own question:
Why won't Obama listen? Does he have something against wise Latina women?
My speculation is that Obama won't listen because he likes and feels close to leftist dictators.
The South Plainsman
The Telegraph in the UK is saying the "US is lurching toward a debt explosion with interest rates on course to double."
That is not particularly a new concept, but it is rare to see the media actually report it. Of course this is from the UK, so the US media is not implicated in telling a bad truth about the economy. That would reflect upon their Messiah, Mr. Obama.
They quote a paper from 2003 by the senior Economist at the Federal Reserve, Thomas Laubach. You can read the paper here.
Really, what it says is that the more the government borrows and spends, the higher the debt gets and the higher interest rates go. Who knew?
Actually, they just predict a doubling of interest rates. My view is that they are quite likely to go even higher. But it doesn't matter. Any higher will prolong recovery.
The conclusion of the story:
"Should the cost of raising or refinancing public debt in the markets double, “the debt could just explode”, he said, adding that it would come to a head in “five to 10 years”. "
Have I worn out the Banana Republic reference? Sorry, it just keeps coming to mind.
The South Plainsman
14% Unemployment? Surely not. But that is what Louis Woodhill is predicting over at Real Clear Markets.
But what about simulus? Well, he says it won't work:
""Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket."
His conclusion:
"Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse."
It is really that simple. Our problems are caused by too much government, too much spending and too much debt. Obama's main aims are to expand each of them as far as he can.
Anybody ever been broke before?
The South Plainsman
Correcting the President. Scott Ott, who writes some great satire at his site Scrappleface is now also blogging over at Townhall, seriously. He has a great piece posted on July 4 in response to Obama's invocation of the Founding Fathers this weekend to justify his programs. Go to the site for the whole thing, which is great. Here is the conclusion:
"Finally, Mr. President, the 13 colonies did not become free and independent states by confiscating wealth from the productive sector of society and doling it out to the unproductive sector in a way that guarantees the perpetual enslavement of both.
"This new nation, conceived in liberty, was brought forth by people who said 'Enough' to a tyrant who capriciously ruled from afar -- people who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that succeeding generations might live the freedom they bought with blood.
"Mr. President when you compare your socialized insurance program, your speculative wealth confiscation program or your Niagara Falls of spending with the endeavors of those bold patriots, you trivialize their sacrifice while you crown yourself with the Styrofoam diadem of a clown."
Well said.
The South Plainsman
California IOUs. According to the Financial Times, Wall Street is gearing up to trade in California's IOUs. And so are opportunistic entrepreneurs on Craigslist.
“If you are receiving a California IOU and you need cash immediately,
please contact me. I may be of assistance,” reads one posting."
How much are those things worth? Well, one guy wants to pay half price:
"Brandon Schlichter, a 23-year-old self-employed online marketer and blogger from
Columbus, Ohio, is among those advertising on Craigslist. He is hoping to buy
the IOUs for about half face value and has set up a website to connect buyers
and sellers for 5-10 per cent commission."
Will US Treasuries be next? Don't be so sure they won't if Obama and the liberals in Congress have their way.
Does the term "Banana Republic" ring a bell with anyone?
The South Plainsman
Robert McNamara has died. The Washington Post accurately calls him the "architect" of the Viet Nam War, which he was.
I have never understood why the voters blame the Republicans for the war when the Democrats started it, screwed it up royally, then did everything they could to undermine Republican effforts to end it honorably.
I guess if you have the press, fiction can become some version of truth. We are seeing more of that phenomenum every day.
The South Plainsman
Good news for coffee drinkers! From the University of South Florida:
"The new findings provide evidence that caffeine could be a viable 'treatment' for established Alzheimer's disease, and not simply a protective strategy," said lead author Gary Arendash, PhD, a USF neuroscientist with the Florida ADRC. "That's important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process."
The whole story is here.
The South Plainsman
Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times, says Palin should have just said "no." I have to agree with that. She was not ready for prime time.
He goes on to point out that her popularity has as much to do with class as ideology
In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president
represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow
up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
She probably never understood the wringer she would be put through for agreeing to run with McCain, until it happened. Woefully unprepared, she blew it. She "tarnished" the "democratic ideal."
But, he says, its also been tarnished by the elites themselves, including the media, by the way they have treated her. I have to agree that they went far overboard, and still are doing so. The purveyors of "hope and change" have continued with the same old gutter politics we have come to expect from them. They hate anyone that is not like them.
Shame.
The South Plainsman
Kevin Hasset over at Bloomberg says that California's nightmare will cause Obamanomics a lot of trouble.The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.
The cause is simple, he says:
All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
This sounds awfully familiar. In fact it seems like the pols in Washington have been doing the same thing for four decades.
The result will be the same, too. Busted!
The South Plainsman
Starting out the blogging day wondering why Obama is siding with the socialist/communist dictators in the Caribbean and South America, guys like Castro and Chavez, against the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras, who removed the President thereof for having violated their constitution. Birds of a feather?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Musings
Just musing today after reading all of the frightening economic and political news.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Resuming, once again
It seems like every time I post here it has been a long time since the last one. When I started this, I had no intention of doing it daily. I just didn't want to be tied down to it. I still don't.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
"The World Turned Upside Down"
That is the title of the song played by the English band as the troops under Lord Cornwallis marched out to lay down their arms outside Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Indeed, the world was upside down in English eyes that day. After over six years of bloody rebellion and very hard times for the people of America, victory was at hand, although it took another two years before the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Hope and change
It was only a few months ago that I posted the last item here, and what a change has occurred. Crude oil is below $40, the economy is in the tank, and everything said before seems hardly relevant any more.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
I'm Still Mad, Eddie
And Getting Madder by the Day
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Musings
Its been six weeks or so since my last entry. I have been busy working and just have not had a desire to write about anything, although there are world's of thing to write about.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Dithering through an energy crisis
Barack Obama and John McCain have discussed energy policy the last day or so, and both are about to announce what their policy is, although McCain has already called to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, if the affected states agree. Obama seems to believe that we can tax ourselves to an energy solution. McCain's policy is weak, and Obama's policy is absurd. Neither will be much or any help with our energy problems. Nor has any other "energy policy" that has been pursued by our government been anything more than a hindrance for many decades. This includes the corn into ethanol boondoggle.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Energy Policy in the United States
This past week, after the appearance by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset referred to in the previous post, the President went hat in hand to see the Saudis and beg them to increase oil production in order to reduce gasoline prices in the United States. Of course, the answer was "no."
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
You Just Can't Make This Up!
ABC reports the statements of President Bush before the Israeli Knesset:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This comes some two weeks or so after former (and worst ever) President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas, Iran's allies, and among Israel's worst enemies. One would think the reference is to Carter, who clearly has sold out to radical Muslim sinterests.
But no! Barack Obama, the candidate of "hope" and "change" thinks President Bush is talking about him! He complains that Bush is making statements abroad that are political. He is very critical of the President's statement.
Soon after, the Speaker from San Francisco steps in to criticize, then Joe Biden, then all the other Looney Tunes on the Democratic left.
Pretty soon, the City Councils of San Francisco and Berkeley will chime in with resolutions.
The President never mentioned anyone by name. Why would Obama think a criticism of appeasement would apply to him? Is that what he plans to do?
When I was a kid, we had a saying: "The guilty dog always barks first."
Karl Rove must have tricked him into this admission. Or maybe Obama and the Democrats are just real dumb.
Like the title says, "You just can't make this up!"
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This comes some two weeks or so after former (and worst ever) President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas, Iran's allies, and among Israel's worst enemies. One would think the reference is to Carter, who clearly has sold out to radical Muslim sinterests.
But no! Barack Obama, the candidate of "hope" and "change" thinks President Bush is talking about him! He complains that Bush is making statements abroad that are political. He is very critical of the President's statement.
Soon after, the Speaker from San Francisco steps in to criticize, then Joe Biden, then all the other Looney Tunes on the Democratic left.
Pretty soon, the City Councils of San Francisco and Berkeley will chime in with resolutions.
The President never mentioned anyone by name. Why would Obama think a criticism of appeasement would apply to him? Is that what he plans to do?
When I was a kid, we had a saying: "The guilty dog always barks first."
Karl Rove must have tricked him into this admission. Or maybe Obama and the Democrats are just real dumb.
Like the title says, "You just can't make this up!"
The End of "Hyper-partisanship?"
John McCain gave a speech today in Columbus, Ohio. The press will report it as a statement that we will be out of Iraq by the end of his first term. His did say that, but there were other far more important things he said.
It appears that both Obama and McCain are campaigning about change. Mr. Obama's lofty phrases have no details. Today, Mr. McCain provided details of what he hopes to accomplish. As he neared the conclusion of his speech, he said:
"...For too long, now, Washington has been consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious challenge facing us as an opportunity to trade insults; disparage each other’s motives; and fight about the next election. For all the problems we face, if you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. Americans are sick of it, and they have every right to be. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay. They despair when every election — no matter who wins — always seems to produce four more years of unkept promises and a government that is just a battleground for the next election. Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. They want to change not only the policies and institutions that have failed the American people, but the political culture that produced them. They want to move this country forward and stake our claim on this century as we did in the last. And they want their government to care more about them than preserving the privileges of the powerful......"
This gives one a good idea of what he wants to change. Perhap we will see if he can. It will take both sides to accomplish it. Read the whole speech here.
It appears that both Obama and McCain are campaigning about change. Mr. Obama's lofty phrases have no details. Today, Mr. McCain provided details of what he hopes to accomplish. As he neared the conclusion of his speech, he said:
"...For too long, now, Washington has been consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious challenge facing us as an opportunity to trade insults; disparage each other’s motives; and fight about the next election. For all the problems we face, if you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. Americans are sick of it, and they have every right to be. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay. They despair when every election — no matter who wins — always seems to produce four more years of unkept promises and a government that is just a battleground for the next election. Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. They want to change not only the policies and institutions that have failed the American people, but the political culture that produced them. They want to move this country forward and stake our claim on this century as we did in the last. And they want their government to care more about them than preserving the privileges of the powerful......"
This gives one a good idea of what he wants to change. Perhap we will see if he can. It will take both sides to accomplish it. Read the whole speech here.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Oil: Part II
Yesterday, while browsing among the Internet news sources, I came upon a story about Senator Stabenow (D) and the Democratic proposals for a new energy policy. Saying the policies of the Republicans have created a crisis, she (and they) propose that the following policies be implemented:
"...— Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
"— Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
"— Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
"— Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
"— Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high....."
While I catch my breath, let me get into a personal disclosure. My first real job as a teenager was in the oil fields. After law school, I spent over 20 years associated with the oil and gas industry, as a lawyer and as an independent operator. I have direct experience in all aspects of the business but refining and marketing. Most of that time, I was an active Democrat. I know a little about the subject of oil and gas.
Having caught my breath, let me ask one question: How many barrels of oil, mcf of natural gas, or kilowatts of electricity will any or all of the Democrats' energy plan bring to the market?
Take your time.
It's not really difficult.
OK. Time's up.
The answer: none, zero, nada, zip....ad infinitum.
In fact, the proposals would, at least in the longer run, reduce the supplies.
Even the liberal New York Times understands the realities better than the Democrats. In an article today, they point out:
"...No industrialized economy is as reliant on oil, or as obsessed with gasoline prices, as the United States, the world’s biggest consumer of oil. But the oil market is largely immune to Washington’s machinations, and prices have more than quadrupled over the last six years for reasons that are increasingly disconnected from what happens in the United States.
"The reality is that oil is a globally traded commodity, and Americans must pay international prices to get their share. And those prices reflect the fact that global supplies are stretched and struggling to meet a booming demand that is being driven by growth in developing countries, notably China and India. This has left the world with a very slim cushion of extra production....."
The Democrats are caught demagoguing, again. They just want to detract attention away from the real reasons the United States is running short of energy, and therefore paying high prices for it.
Let us look at some things that should be done, many of these decades ago.
Oil is a scant commodity in some ways. It is hard and very expensive to find and get to market. So for energy, we need to develop some alternatives, and have needed to for decades
First and foremost is nuclear energy. This is a forty plus year old technology that has been used safely in every country in the world, except once in the Former Soviet Union, for over three decades. The US builds new nuclear reactors all the time for naval vessels. But we have not built a new one to supply electricty in the US for 30 years. This at a time when the French have been using nukes for most of their electrical generation.
Another question" Why?"
Because the Luddites of the Democratic left erected too many barriers to their construction.
There are other alternatives: coal is one. The US has huge reserves of coal, but, of course, coal doesn't have a good emissions profile. Some kinds do have much better than other, but the world class deposit of clean burning coal that we have was locked up forever by Bill Clinton as he was stealing away from the White House. The remaining will require much more expensive technology to clean up.
Wind is currently being subsidized (even at the current high price of oil it is not economical as an alternative). Out in West Texas we have thousands of large wind generators, but Ted Kennedy can't have them at Hyannisport.
Strides are being made all the time to develop solar energy, but we are far away from having the efficiency and storage capacity for that to be of much hope.
There are some other alternatives...oil from coal and from the western oil shale deposits, but those are far from being economical, and the environmental costs might be too high, anyway.
And there is always the hope of fusion energy...maybe for our grandchildren. Or not.
Most of the above, if we started now, would not make a short term impact, but will take years to implement. Why not start now? Ask your local Congressman, or your US Senators.
In the meantime, what can we do to increase supply?
First, we can permit limited drilling in the ANWR. In 1998, Congress passed a bill allowing that, but it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. If that bill had been permitted to become law, we might be very close to having an extra two or so million barrels of oil per day coming onstream. Senator Stabenow won't mention that, of course.
Second, we can permit drilling off Florida, the Pacific Coast, and the Atlantic Coast. Those areas are off limits now, even to preliminary exploration. But we can estimate that there are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to be found in those areas. No one in the states affected want to risk oil development offshore even though there has not been an offshore oil spill from a drilling or production platform since the one at Santa Barbara, California in 1969, the spill that started this. Technology has marched on, but the Luddites are still among us.
A third thing we can do is repeal the provision in the new energy bill just passed by Congress that makes the Canadian Oil Sands deposits "non-conventional oil", which makes it virtually unusable in the US because of various restrictions.
Many of you have not heard much about the oil sands, but Canada has a deposit with reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia up there, and it is now being developed. Pipelines were being studied to bring huge amount of the oil down to the US. Now the Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, has put a halt to it. The Canadians don't care. The Chinese are already trying to buy it up. With our money, to boot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats appear to only want to pin it on the Republicans for the lack of an energy policy, without offering up anything that would really help. The Republicans have proven to be almost as bad as the Democrats, and apparently none from either side cares about it except how it might affect the next election. Meanwhile, we are suffering the high gas prices with little to show for it.
There is more...a lot more. But this is getting too long again, so I will close.
Before I do close, though, I want to make an apology. In the last blog post about oil, I compared Democratic Senators to morons. I am deeply sorry for being so offensive to the morons of the world. I was just trying to sugar coat it a little bit. They are, of course, worse than morons.
"...— Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
"— Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
"— Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
"— Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
"— Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high....."
While I catch my breath, let me get into a personal disclosure. My first real job as a teenager was in the oil fields. After law school, I spent over 20 years associated with the oil and gas industry, as a lawyer and as an independent operator. I have direct experience in all aspects of the business but refining and marketing. Most of that time, I was an active Democrat. I know a little about the subject of oil and gas.
Having caught my breath, let me ask one question: How many barrels of oil, mcf of natural gas, or kilowatts of electricity will any or all of the Democrats' energy plan bring to the market?
Take your time.
It's not really difficult.
OK. Time's up.
The answer: none, zero, nada, zip....ad infinitum.
In fact, the proposals would, at least in the longer run, reduce the supplies.
Even the liberal New York Times understands the realities better than the Democrats. In an article today, they point out:
"...No industrialized economy is as reliant on oil, or as obsessed with gasoline prices, as the United States, the world’s biggest consumer of oil. But the oil market is largely immune to Washington’s machinations, and prices have more than quadrupled over the last six years for reasons that are increasingly disconnected from what happens in the United States.
"The reality is that oil is a globally traded commodity, and Americans must pay international prices to get their share. And those prices reflect the fact that global supplies are stretched and struggling to meet a booming demand that is being driven by growth in developing countries, notably China and India. This has left the world with a very slim cushion of extra production....."
The Democrats are caught demagoguing, again. They just want to detract attention away from the real reasons the United States is running short of energy, and therefore paying high prices for it.
Let us look at some things that should be done, many of these decades ago.
Oil is a scant commodity in some ways. It is hard and very expensive to find and get to market. So for energy, we need to develop some alternatives, and have needed to for decades
First and foremost is nuclear energy. This is a forty plus year old technology that has been used safely in every country in the world, except once in the Former Soviet Union, for over three decades. The US builds new nuclear reactors all the time for naval vessels. But we have not built a new one to supply electricty in the US for 30 years. This at a time when the French have been using nukes for most of their electrical generation.
Another question" Why?"
Because the Luddites of the Democratic left erected too many barriers to their construction.
There are other alternatives: coal is one. The US has huge reserves of coal, but, of course, coal doesn't have a good emissions profile. Some kinds do have much better than other, but the world class deposit of clean burning coal that we have was locked up forever by Bill Clinton as he was stealing away from the White House. The remaining will require much more expensive technology to clean up.
Wind is currently being subsidized (even at the current high price of oil it is not economical as an alternative). Out in West Texas we have thousands of large wind generators, but Ted Kennedy can't have them at Hyannisport.
Strides are being made all the time to develop solar energy, but we are far away from having the efficiency and storage capacity for that to be of much hope.
There are some other alternatives...oil from coal and from the western oil shale deposits, but those are far from being economical, and the environmental costs might be too high, anyway.
And there is always the hope of fusion energy...maybe for our grandchildren. Or not.
Most of the above, if we started now, would not make a short term impact, but will take years to implement. Why not start now? Ask your local Congressman, or your US Senators.
In the meantime, what can we do to increase supply?
First, we can permit limited drilling in the ANWR. In 1998, Congress passed a bill allowing that, but it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. If that bill had been permitted to become law, we might be very close to having an extra two or so million barrels of oil per day coming onstream. Senator Stabenow won't mention that, of course.
Second, we can permit drilling off Florida, the Pacific Coast, and the Atlantic Coast. Those areas are off limits now, even to preliminary exploration. But we can estimate that there are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to be found in those areas. No one in the states affected want to risk oil development offshore even though there has not been an offshore oil spill from a drilling or production platform since the one at Santa Barbara, California in 1969, the spill that started this. Technology has marched on, but the Luddites are still among us.
A third thing we can do is repeal the provision in the new energy bill just passed by Congress that makes the Canadian Oil Sands deposits "non-conventional oil", which makes it virtually unusable in the US because of various restrictions.
Many of you have not heard much about the oil sands, but Canada has a deposit with reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia up there, and it is now being developed. Pipelines were being studied to bring huge amount of the oil down to the US. Now the Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, has put a halt to it. The Canadians don't care. The Chinese are already trying to buy it up. With our money, to boot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats appear to only want to pin it on the Republicans for the lack of an energy policy, without offering up anything that would really help. The Republicans have proven to be almost as bad as the Democrats, and apparently none from either side cares about it except how it might affect the next election. Meanwhile, we are suffering the high gas prices with little to show for it.
There is more...a lot more. But this is getting too long again, so I will close.
Before I do close, though, I want to make an apology. In the last blog post about oil, I compared Democratic Senators to morons. I am deeply sorry for being so offensive to the morons of the world. I was just trying to sugar coat it a little bit. They are, of course, worse than morons.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Oil
The subject of oil is on everyone's mind as the prices of crude oil and gasoline seem to make new highs every day. As we all know, oil ( and other hydrocarbons) is what makes our economic engines run in the US, along with coal, a little nuclear, and wind power (which is moving up).
Oil has always been controversial. It has always been a political football. Everyone wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it.
From WW II until the early 1970s, oil was very cheap, and we and much of the rest of the developed world became hooked on it. For all of those years, there was a large surplus of supply, so much so that for most of those years, the State of Texas acted as a cushion, as it were. It limited production when the then low price was threatened by oversupply, and it increased production when supplies were reduced, such as when the Suez Canal was bombed in the 1950s.
As a result, the price of crude oil at the wellhead remained between $2 and $3 per barrel in the decades before 1973.
About that time, the productive capacity in Texas and the US reached the point where imports became necessary. Suddenly, the producers of last resort became the OPEC countries. The ability of US producers to have any effect on the price of crude disappeared, and OPEC, and particularly Saudi Arabia, began to limit production to force a higher price. They continue to do that, although there is much evidence that oil production in the world is near a peak.
During the last two decades, the Third World, and particularly China, has rapidly developed. Along with that development has come an insatiable thirst for oil. The huge increases of demand from those countries has begun to overwhelm the supply. Now there is no cushion of supply.
Simple high school economics should tell us that in these circumstances the price is going to go up until such point that the price begins to reduce demand. This is far too elementary for some to grasp, unfortunately.
With that very brief overview, let us go to today's New York Times. They have several items on the subject.
The first one I came upon is : Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June. I guess a peak is good, but would be expected. They note that demand in the US is headed down:
"...In its monthly report, the Energy Department projected that domestic petroleum consumption would decline by about 190,000 barrels a day this year, a result of the economic slowdown and high prices. That is a sharper drop than the 90,000-barrel-a-day decline projected by the department last month.
After accounting for increased ethanol use, domestic consumption will fall by 330,000 barrels a day, or less than 1 percent of total gasoline demand. While limited, it would be the first annual decline in gasoline demand since 1991....."
So, supply and demand concepts are at work, but watch out. China's demand is rapidly increasing:
"....Despite these higher costs, global oil demand is still projected to rise by 1.2 million barrels a day this year, mostly because of growing consumption in China, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil and India.
"China alone will account for a third of the jump in consumption. In March, Chinese imports rose by 800,000 barrels a day, compared with levels a year earlier, a big increase that could mean China is filling its oil reserve needs before the start of the Olympic Games this summer....."
The real kicker is that supply is also falling:
"...Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.1 million barrels a day last month, down 320,000 barrels from March, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. ...."
The conclusion is not good news:
"...Analysts’ forecasts for the price of gasoline over the next few years run as high as $7 a gallon."
Nowhere is there a mention that the oil companies are responsible for the price increase (and they are not).
The next article is entitled : Stocks Decline as Oil Prices Head Higher . This makes sense. The nearly one trillion dollars we are sending overseas for oil is like a huge tax, and is going to severely effect the economy. That is an easy one.
Last, but not least, is the one entitled: Senate Democrats Unveil New Energy Tax Plan . It seems that the Democrats of the United States Senate have determined that the solution to the high cost of oil is to tax the Hell out of the oil companies. Look at the article and see what they want to do:
"Democrats in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources....."
This, of course, will drive prices higher, and will not serve to increase the supply. It is a completely political proposal by those morons, intended to cast the blame on Bush and the Republicans for the current high prices, even after these same morons have opposed every proposal in the last thirty years to increase US production.
This blog is too long, and I will close, but will return to the issue soon. Until then, we all must realize that we must do something constructive about energy in this country, and leave the petty and idiotic political posturing behind us.
Oil has always been controversial. It has always been a political football. Everyone wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it.
From WW II until the early 1970s, oil was very cheap, and we and much of the rest of the developed world became hooked on it. For all of those years, there was a large surplus of supply, so much so that for most of those years, the State of Texas acted as a cushion, as it were. It limited production when the then low price was threatened by oversupply, and it increased production when supplies were reduced, such as when the Suez Canal was bombed in the 1950s.
As a result, the price of crude oil at the wellhead remained between $2 and $3 per barrel in the decades before 1973.
About that time, the productive capacity in Texas and the US reached the point where imports became necessary. Suddenly, the producers of last resort became the OPEC countries. The ability of US producers to have any effect on the price of crude disappeared, and OPEC, and particularly Saudi Arabia, began to limit production to force a higher price. They continue to do that, although there is much evidence that oil production in the world is near a peak.
During the last two decades, the Third World, and particularly China, has rapidly developed. Along with that development has come an insatiable thirst for oil. The huge increases of demand from those countries has begun to overwhelm the supply. Now there is no cushion of supply.
Simple high school economics should tell us that in these circumstances the price is going to go up until such point that the price begins to reduce demand. This is far too elementary for some to grasp, unfortunately.
With that very brief overview, let us go to today's New York Times. They have several items on the subject.
The first one I came upon is : Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June. I guess a peak is good, but would be expected. They note that demand in the US is headed down:
"...In its monthly report, the Energy Department projected that domestic petroleum consumption would decline by about 190,000 barrels a day this year, a result of the economic slowdown and high prices. That is a sharper drop than the 90,000-barrel-a-day decline projected by the department last month.
After accounting for increased ethanol use, domestic consumption will fall by 330,000 barrels a day, or less than 1 percent of total gasoline demand. While limited, it would be the first annual decline in gasoline demand since 1991....."
So, supply and demand concepts are at work, but watch out. China's demand is rapidly increasing:
"....Despite these higher costs, global oil demand is still projected to rise by 1.2 million barrels a day this year, mostly because of growing consumption in China, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil and India.
"China alone will account for a third of the jump in consumption. In March, Chinese imports rose by 800,000 barrels a day, compared with levels a year earlier, a big increase that could mean China is filling its oil reserve needs before the start of the Olympic Games this summer....."
The real kicker is that supply is also falling:
"...Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.1 million barrels a day last month, down 320,000 barrels from March, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. ...."
The conclusion is not good news:
"...Analysts’ forecasts for the price of gasoline over the next few years run as high as $7 a gallon."
Nowhere is there a mention that the oil companies are responsible for the price increase (and they are not).
The next article is entitled : Stocks Decline as Oil Prices Head Higher . This makes sense. The nearly one trillion dollars we are sending overseas for oil is like a huge tax, and is going to severely effect the economy. That is an easy one.
Last, but not least, is the one entitled: Senate Democrats Unveil New Energy Tax Plan . It seems that the Democrats of the United States Senate have determined that the solution to the high cost of oil is to tax the Hell out of the oil companies. Look at the article and see what they want to do:
"Democrats in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources....."
This, of course, will drive prices higher, and will not serve to increase the supply. It is a completely political proposal by those morons, intended to cast the blame on Bush and the Republicans for the current high prices, even after these same morons have opposed every proposal in the last thirty years to increase US production.
This blog is too long, and I will close, but will return to the issue soon. Until then, we all must realize that we must do something constructive about energy in this country, and leave the petty and idiotic political posturing behind us.
The Primary Season is over
Well, the primary season is just about over, and Obama is clearly going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary may continue the fight, but I see no "Rocky" outcome here. The Democrats just cannot afford to nominate anyone but Obama.
Meanwhile, John McCain has rocked along for weeks as the certain Republican nominee. I am not sure that, in itself, is worth much. For the last several years, the Republican Party has been circling down the drain, and the Democrats clearly have the upper hand. The last two elections for vacant Congressional seats shows the disrepute that the party has sunk into.
McCain will have a hard fight to undo any of this, made easier only by the inexperience and leftish lean of Obama.
David Brooks, of the New York Times, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, blogs about the dilemma:
"...Obama has a much more liberal profile than he did several weeks ago. Moderate, independent voters are now less sure that Obama shares their values. Hillary Clinton voters are much, much more hostile toward him. His supporters look more and more like the McGovern-Dukakis constituency, and the walls between that constituency and the rest of the country are higher than they were weeks ago....."; and:
"...Republicans are going to take a look at Obama’s liberal profile and they’re going to be tempted to run a traditional right versus left campaign. They know how to beat Dukakis-McGovern candidates.
That would be a big mistake. Traditional Republicans can beat liberal Democrats when the Republican brand is in healthy shape. That is not the case now......"
His conclusion:
"...In 2004, only about 10 percent of the electorate was really undecided. Now about 36 percent is undecided. That’s a lot of votes to play for.
It’s now nearly certain Obama and McCain will be the ones to play for them. But both nominees are wounded. Both will have to change. "
Makes good sense to me. Maybe we will see some change this year. Will it be for the better?
UPDATE at 4:03 PM CDT:
The USA Today blog has a column up by Don Campbell that outlines some of the problems that Obama now has. Its a good story, and you can find it here.
Campbell discusses at some length Obama's lack of experience and the failure of the press to "vet" him earlier in the campaign. His conclusion:
"...Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.
Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he'll need in a close general election. They won't just listen to what he says, they'll try to peer into his soul. That's why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.
More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."
But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is."
Amen.
Meanwhile, John McCain has rocked along for weeks as the certain Republican nominee. I am not sure that, in itself, is worth much. For the last several years, the Republican Party has been circling down the drain, and the Democrats clearly have the upper hand. The last two elections for vacant Congressional seats shows the disrepute that the party has sunk into.
McCain will have a hard fight to undo any of this, made easier only by the inexperience and leftish lean of Obama.
David Brooks, of the New York Times, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, blogs about the dilemma:
"...Obama has a much more liberal profile than he did several weeks ago. Moderate, independent voters are now less sure that Obama shares their values. Hillary Clinton voters are much, much more hostile toward him. His supporters look more and more like the McGovern-Dukakis constituency, and the walls between that constituency and the rest of the country are higher than they were weeks ago....."; and:
"...Republicans are going to take a look at Obama’s liberal profile and they’re going to be tempted to run a traditional right versus left campaign. They know how to beat Dukakis-McGovern candidates.
That would be a big mistake. Traditional Republicans can beat liberal Democrats when the Republican brand is in healthy shape. That is not the case now......"
His conclusion:
"...In 2004, only about 10 percent of the electorate was really undecided. Now about 36 percent is undecided. That’s a lot of votes to play for.
It’s now nearly certain Obama and McCain will be the ones to play for them. But both nominees are wounded. Both will have to change. "
Makes good sense to me. Maybe we will see some change this year. Will it be for the better?
UPDATE at 4:03 PM CDT:
The USA Today blog has a column up by Don Campbell that outlines some of the problems that Obama now has. Its a good story, and you can find it here.
Campbell discusses at some length Obama's lack of experience and the failure of the press to "vet" him earlier in the campaign. His conclusion:
"...Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.
Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he'll need in a close general election. They won't just listen to what he says, they'll try to peer into his soul. That's why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.
More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."
But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is."
Amen.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
This and that
Hillary and the Times
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Barack, Alinsky and Rev. Wright
A few days ago my Sis emailed me reminding me that Barack Obama was something of a follower of Saul Alinsky's teaching.( You will recall, also, that Hillary Rodham wrote her Master's thesis about Alinsky as well.) A light went off, and it occurred to me why Obama picked Reverend Wright's church when he came to Chicago to organize after his graduation from Columbia.
Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.
There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:
"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)
This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.
Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.
A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.
So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:
"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."
There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:
"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."
"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."
There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?
One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:
"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."
So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:
"...I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed...."
So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.
Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:
"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."
Read all the citations, and then:
You decide.
UPDATE:
Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.
Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.
There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:
"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)
This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.
Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.
A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.
So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:
"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."
There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:
"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."
"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."
There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?
One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:
"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."
So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:
"...I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed...."
So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.
Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:
"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."
Read all the citations, and then:
You decide.
UPDATE:
Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.
Monday, March 17, 2008
More Barack Obama
Since the last post, recordings of Barack Obama's pastor have emerged. Both excerpts are shocking, of course, particularly the "G-- D--- America" quote.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Who is Barack Obama? an Update
As the Democratic race for the nomination heads toward a climax of sorts, I thought I would revisit the question that I asked in a previous post. I have written and rewritten a short bio of Obama the last several days, and just cannot make myself happy with it, so I will abandon the same, and provide some good links to materials I have found so that a reader can go to far better written and researched articles.
Obama's current home town newspaper provides the best and most detailed investigation, although it is not as in depth as it could be. The Chicago Tribune series can be found here. I encourage everyone to go there and read to your heart's desire.
Other materials can be found here, and here, and here. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list.
Having spent numerous hours poring over stories about Obama, I have come to some conclusions about him that I will list below. Naturally, if new evidence comes out, my conclusions are subject to change.
1. Obama is a superbly intelligent man with a great deal of talent for politics. His wife, Michelle, is also very intelligent, but not so politically gifted. Both are leftist Ivy League "social activists." The campaign that the Obamas have run has been one of the best I have ever seen in my 50 years of politics. At least until now.
2. Obama is not a messiah or a harbinger of change, but a very bright and ambitious politician who rapidly worked himself up within the Chicago Democratic machine. His connections to Tony Rezko, now on trial for political corruption, will need much deeper investigation. Rezko has been described as a "fund raiser" by the press in connection with Obama, but my opinion is that Rezko is nothing more than what we used to call a "bag man" for the Cook County organization. The house deal, as well as other dealings, bear much more scrutiny than has been apparent to date. I am sure we will hear more about that later, if our press does an honest job.
3. The Obama campaign is like a box, all dressed up like a Christmas present with all of the glitter and pretty ribbons one would like. On the box, there appears to be something for everyone...peace, harmony, hope, change, bi-partisanship...everything all the polls say that most American voters desire in a candidate.
4. The box is empty. If one looks at his record, there is nothing to suggest that he will be able, or even try, to accomplish all of that. He has never said what he would do that would make any of this happen. As Walter Mondale would say: "Where's the beef?"
5. What he really offers is the sad old left wing platitudes and programs. See his booklet, The Blueprint for Change, in PDF form here. Some of it sounds good, but.........promises made by politicians are seldom kept, and most of them cannot be.
6. The likelihood that Obama will be our next President is better than 50% right now.
Read it and weep, or celebrate, depending upon your preference.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Update on New York Times Story
The Times, after all the backlash from their virtually unsourced story, now has an editorial up explaining what they meant to say (bold emphasis mine):
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
So says Bill Keller, Editor of the Times. Mr. Keller, if that was the intent, why didn't the article just say so? Instead, as Clark Hoyte, the Public Editor of the Times says:
"I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."
In spite of what Keller says, the piece was designed as a "hit" piece to harm McCain, without any real evidence. As Mr. Hoyte concludes:
"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
My view is that Mr. Hoyte does not go far enough. They knew the evidence was not there, and they didn't care. They wanted to embarrass McCain, and ended up embarrassing themselves far more.
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
So says Bill Keller, Editor of the Times. Mr. Keller, if that was the intent, why didn't the article just say so? Instead, as Clark Hoyte, the Public Editor of the Times says:
"I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."
In spite of what Keller says, the piece was designed as a "hit" piece to harm McCain, without any real evidence. As Mr. Hoyte concludes:
"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
My view is that Mr. Hoyte does not go far enough. They knew the evidence was not there, and they didn't care. They wanted to embarrass McCain, and ended up embarrassing themselves far more.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The New York Times Shows It's Spots (Again)
Yesterday afternoon before I went to watch basketball, I noted that the NYT was putting up a smear of John McCain on their Internet site. After reading it, I just blew it off as more typical left wing ranting by a paper that has long lost it's credibility, and watched the game.
Today, after some thought about it, it occurred to me that there are still people out there that believe what the Times prints, so I am just going to write a brief response. First, of course, one must read the article. It is posted Here.
Upon reading the article, please note that the latest event that they are reporting occurred more than eight (8) years ago. It was brought up during the South Carolina Primary in 2000. So it's not news.
Next note that there are no sources quoted or identified. Did they make it up? It would not be the first time a major news organization did that (see Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, CBS News, and others, ad nauseum).
All the persons mentioned denied the allegations made. So where is the evidence? The real "news" here is that the Times ran with a story they could not substantiate with any evidence.
One of the things the article discussed was the Keating 5 scandal. McCain, of course, was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Why bring that old story up now? The only answer to that is they are trying to discredit McCain.
None other than Bob Bennett, the big time Democratic lawyer in Washington had this to say regarding the Keating 5 investigation:
".... If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.
"But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator."( Read the whole thing HERE)
So the truth is, the real story was really about corrupt Democrats, and the Democratic majority kept McCain in it, over the advice of their counsel, just so they could have a Republican to beat up on during the hearings. Funny that didn't make the Times....but not surprising.
So what about the Times? They are losing advertisers, readers, and profits. Apparently they have decided going even further left will help them, or perhaps they want to adopt the business plan of the National Enquirer. At the least, they have become the propaganda mouthpiece of the far left in this country.
My view is that the paper is probably not even fit to use for lining a cat litter box.
Today, after some thought about it, it occurred to me that there are still people out there that believe what the Times prints, so I am just going to write a brief response. First, of course, one must read the article. It is posted Here.
Upon reading the article, please note that the latest event that they are reporting occurred more than eight (8) years ago. It was brought up during the South Carolina Primary in 2000. So it's not news.
Next note that there are no sources quoted or identified. Did they make it up? It would not be the first time a major news organization did that (see Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, CBS News, and others, ad nauseum).
All the persons mentioned denied the allegations made. So where is the evidence? The real "news" here is that the Times ran with a story they could not substantiate with any evidence.
One of the things the article discussed was the Keating 5 scandal. McCain, of course, was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Why bring that old story up now? The only answer to that is they are trying to discredit McCain.
None other than Bob Bennett, the big time Democratic lawyer in Washington had this to say regarding the Keating 5 investigation:
".... If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.
"But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator."( Read the whole thing HERE)
So the truth is, the real story was really about corrupt Democrats, and the Democratic majority kept McCain in it, over the advice of their counsel, just so they could have a Republican to beat up on during the hearings. Funny that didn't make the Times....but not surprising.
So what about the Times? They are losing advertisers, readers, and profits. Apparently they have decided going even further left will help them, or perhaps they want to adopt the business plan of the National Enquirer. At the least, they have become the propaganda mouthpiece of the far left in this country.
My view is that the paper is probably not even fit to use for lining a cat litter box.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Turn out the lights?
Is it time to sing the old Willie song for Hillary? Hard to say for sure, but it's getting close to closing time. Maybe she is hoping that it's true that "all the girls get prettier at closing time."
Seriously, she is near the end of the primaries without having knocked out that upstart from Illinois, and will have to decide whether to have a convention fight. My view is that that is a lose-lose proposition, but it is probably her only chance.
Her campaign has gone much the same way as Rudy and Fred's. It appears she thought Obama would be easy to knock out, and she did not gear up for the long haul. Now she is short of money, short of delegates, and short of much hope.
Will she win Texas and Ohio and then Pennsylvania? The Wisconsin results don't seem to give her a lot of hope in Ohio, and my thought is that Obama is rising rapidly in Texas. If I were to bet, it would be on Obama here.
It is apparent that the Clintons never expected Obama to do so well, and that he would surely be out of it by now. Surprise, surprise. Now the Clintons don't have much of a plan for Texas, and their prospects are declining rapidly.
Just last week they had Bill in Texas, and he spent a day out in West Texas, where there are very few Democratic votes. He ended up that day in Austin, but his time would have been much better spent in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or the Valley. It was a waste out here.
That is just an example of how mistakes have dogged the Clinton campaign. I suspect we will see more. The whole campaign has lacked the professionalism one would have expected from Bill and Hillary.
Now, it is almost certain to come down to a floor fight at the National Convention. No candidate will have the votes to win before then. There is going to be a lot of horse trading between now and convention time.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Seriously, she is near the end of the primaries without having knocked out that upstart from Illinois, and will have to decide whether to have a convention fight. My view is that that is a lose-lose proposition, but it is probably her only chance.
Her campaign has gone much the same way as Rudy and Fred's. It appears she thought Obama would be easy to knock out, and she did not gear up for the long haul. Now she is short of money, short of delegates, and short of much hope.
Will she win Texas and Ohio and then Pennsylvania? The Wisconsin results don't seem to give her a lot of hope in Ohio, and my thought is that Obama is rising rapidly in Texas. If I were to bet, it would be on Obama here.
It is apparent that the Clintons never expected Obama to do so well, and that he would surely be out of it by now. Surprise, surprise. Now the Clintons don't have much of a plan for Texas, and their prospects are declining rapidly.
Just last week they had Bill in Texas, and he spent a day out in West Texas, where there are very few Democratic votes. He ended up that day in Austin, but his time would have been much better spent in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or the Valley. It was a waste out here.
That is just an example of how mistakes have dogged the Clinton campaign. I suspect we will see more. The whole campaign has lacked the professionalism one would have expected from Bill and Hillary.
Now, it is almost certain to come down to a floor fight at the National Convention. No candidate will have the votes to win before then. There is going to be a lot of horse trading between now and convention time.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)