About Me

Name: Bill Crawford
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

The New Oil Wars

The Democrats are really adept at developing a set of talking points and clinging to them. Here's a few that are sticking in my craw right now:
 
"The oil companies should stick to drilling on the 68 million acres they have leased already". Cute. Until you realize that the company leases are a gamble. Some are yet unexplored, many may eventually be accounted for as unworkable. Many acres have potential, but have environmental impact studies being done on them, as required by the people who now slap the oil companies for not having drilled there yet!
 
"The coastal areas will not yield reserves for twenty to thirty years". A retread- the same concept was used in the early '80's (which was, conincidentally, twenty to thirty years ago). Even as yet unexplored territory, given the proper investment, can be developed and productive in less than six years, by oil company estimates. And at over $100 a barrel, the proper investment is not at all hard to find.
 
"ANWR will only provide a few months of oil for us". That is, if you shut everything else off and run the economy on their pipeline alone. That's a cute one, too.
 
"Opening up the offshore drilling will not drop the price of gas by more than a few cents a gallon". Probably the biggest pantload of them all. What is the Congressional outcry against commodities speculators if the hedge price of oil is in line with reserves vs. demand? The oil companies and the hedge fund managers agree that there is somewhere around $50-$75 a barrel locked in by futures positioning, which translates to 60-75 centas a gallon at the pump. Nobody in their tiny mind should be thinking that the factors of supply and demand have changed such in the last year to scoot prices up by a factor of over 50%. This would seem to lend credibility to the notion that a Congressional commitment to offshore drilling now would have an immediate effect on the commodities market, which would be followed by a significant drop in the price per gallon.
 
"We can't drill our way out of this problem". Nobody is proposing that. But you can't conserve your way out if it, either. Barrack Obama does not have a short term solution in the offing. He had better come up with one, if he can manage to. Unfortunately for him, solar panel and battery technology is not something that can be conjured up by executive fiat.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sometimes The Law Is An A**

It seems that Justice Kennedy spent a little time meandering through over 130 pages of opinion to conclude that Constitutional rights should be extended to a pack of miscreants who don't honor the most basic of human rights, don't recognize any of the protocols of the Geneva Convention and are more than willing to use any comfort we send their way to resume their jihad against America.
 
I'm still going through the particulars, but let's say up front that I'm less than compelled to extend charity to aband of truly dangerous people when we are at war. That is the central concept here: in a war, prisoners are held for the duration.
 
This is not to say that there isn't a significant portion of America that is fatigued beyond belief of this war and the trappings of Guantanamo Bay. The problem here is that there are too many here who don't seem to recognize we are at war. This is something that Al-Queda and their supporters are all too willing to try and exploit. They know this is a war, and they are always trying to ju-jitsu their way past an America that they can never stand up to face-to-face.
 
Now we will have a parade of lawyers going Judge shopping for these bozos. The biggest contingent will head for the Ninth Circuit in California, and will be more than happy to pay the extra fifteen bucks for the carry on bag on Jet Blue. At least they will be doing their part to keep the airlines of America in the black.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Can Live With Obama The Economist

One of the first acts of the Clinton administration in 1993 was to formulate a deficit reduction bill. The goal was to accumulate an advertised total of half a trillion dollars.
 
In the midst of one of their lively Cabinet sessions, the discussions of adjustments in the capital gains tax came up. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen gave an impromptu lecture on how their plans would end up putting the market in such turmoil that the federal revenue stream would be crimped beyond repair. Clinton's reponse was "You mean I have to cater to a bunch of fu**ing Bond Traders?" Bentsen nodded affirmatively and that part of the discussion was over. Clinton understood that the private economy was the pump that primed his political life, and he moved on. This instinct was what allowed him to campaign for NAFTA over the virulent objections of many in his administration.
 
Obama shows no such proclivity to date. I realized that when he sat through a debate tete-a-tete with ABC's Charles Gibson. Charlie threw an Econ 101 lecture on Obama, noting how the feds managed to conjure up more cap gains revenue when the rate dropped to 15%, so raising it would do what? Obama responded with a pogrom on how the fund managers of the world were making money by the barrel, and he was looking for something more "fair" (to be determined by Obama-natch).
 
Now Obama proposes starting up Social Security taxes on every dollar after $250,000 per year. He isn't clear exactly how this would apply- if it is dumped on small business owners, does it apply to both the employer and employee share? He is clear that his $250K is not individual, but household income. This would effectively amount to a top tier income tax rate not seen since Reagan dumped the 71% top rate in 1981.
 
Why can I live with this? Obama is so out there with this stuff that he is like the Ebola virus- a creature that is so effective at killing it's host that they have no time to mingle in the population and spread the virus. Barrack's ideas are so far out there sometimes that I have trouble fathoming even a Democrat Congress passing it.
 
It was said of Bill Clinton that he rarely made sustained mistakes, meaning he was a fast learner. I think that doesn't directly apply here. Obama's learning curve on the campaign trail has been impressive. But he is much more of an ideologue than Clinton ever was. Clinton advertised himself as a "third way" in his first campaign, and that instinct morphed into Dick Moriis' "triangulation" four years later.
 
The truly dangerous thing about a relativist like Obama is his unpredictability. Investors will find a way to live with a Marxist in the White House, adjusting their money to respond to whatever the new economy is- as long as they can predict it. Even Clinton developed a predictable pattern of operation by 1994. This is why the Oval Office is not a train as you go place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama The Politician

Let's not get into Obama the flip-flopper. Presidential politics demands thinking on the fly and moving strategies week by week. Rarely do you find a candidate whose mindset is so compelling that circumstances open the White House for them just by "being themselves". Ronald Reagan is the last one that comes to mind. It was his time. America was as ready for him in 1980 as they wouldn't have been in 1968.
 
This is about the incredible rationales for Obama foregoing public funding for his campaign. I understand why he had to do it. It couldn't have been an easy decision. In order for this to work for him, he will have to easily double the $80M+ that McCain will get to work with.
 
That means spending an incredible amount of valuable campaign time fund raising. It means sucking up to Hillary's donor base. And raising upwards of $160 million means that it will be damned near impossible to maintain the illusion of stark independence from "lobbyists and special interest groups".
 
McCain doesn't have to do it, because his smarter people are telling him he will get a significant burst in donations late in the campaign season, from conservatives scared witless of the Obama spectre. In the meantime, much of that money is going to an already robust GOP. The Republican money is there.
 
Obama has no choice because the Democrat coffers, run into the ground by hapless Howard Dean, will offer him no help to speak of this fall. Barrack is on his own, and he needs every dollar he can get to be competitive.
 
The joke is the rationale presented to us- a haunted world of conservative 527 groups, coming out of the bushes to "swift boat" him. Funny thing, though: the likes of DailyKos, Media Matters and MoveOn have outspent their conservative mirrors by a factor of two to one this year. George Soros and his ilk have pumped well over $100M into the media already, and they show no sign of slowing down.
 
I think that Obama knows full well that his "discouragement" of them will do nothing to slow down their work this summer.
 
Barrack is not only a true politician, but he is a relativist at heart. He is not the grand uniter. He is an old fashioned urban politico from the South Side of Chicago. David Brooks has labeled him "Fast Eddie" Obama. Watch that one stick later this year.
 
That's the unholy side of a national campaign. It ain't the primaries. You can have the old media in your camp, but too much tradition is out there to actually attempt to illuminate the positions of each major candidate. The song and dance of Obama to date, explaining the hypocrisies and faults of McCain while offering nothing specific in contrast, will not fly in that crucible.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Triple Crown This Year

Big Brown comes in dead last. The triple crown series is a grueling sot. It takes a very special horse to pull all three off, capped by the mile-and-a-half equine marathon at Belmont.
 
I have my reservations about racing in general. European horse start racing at five, and run three or four years. Here, they get loaded with steroids, loaded up with anti-inflammation butalyn to control the growth and raced at two or three. It stands to reason that such an animal would run times that would blow European horses away. Nobody wants to give up their farm to be the token humanitarian.
 
It's worse now than ever. There used to be a trainer's axiom to not stud or foal with any horse with less than 25 races in their career. Now the better horses race half a dozen times and then are retired to stud. Generations of this bred a brittleness not seen before, which may well be part of what did in Eight Belles a couple of months ago.
 
Not that there is nothing to celebrate. The true mark of a thoroughbred is the competitive mind. When the mind is as extraordinary as the musculature, you get an athlete that comes along once every half century. Man O' War was one. Secretariat was another.
 
Secretariat did something in the Preakness in 1973 I have not seen a horse do before or since: every race segment had a shorter time. He accelerated the entire race!
 
In the Belmont, he went off as a 1-5 favorite. So many bet on him that the odds went down to 1-20, the lowest I've ever seen. Most of the people kept their tickets as souvenirs, never cashing them in. A mile into the race, it was over. The jockey, Ron Turcotte, broke a cardinal rule- he looked behind him. When you ride in a pack of horses at full gallop, the noise is deafening and it feels like you are riding an earthquake. He heard nothing, and it was so unusual that he had to look. He won by 31 lengths. Secretariat still holds the course record.
 
So, I'm spoiled. Big Brown didn't do a thing for me. I saw Secretariat, the only non-human to win Sports Illustrated Athlete of the Year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Public School Taxes

There is a proposal up for grabs in New York that caps the rate of incrase of property taxes, which the bulk of NY school districts use to fund themselves.
 
It is being proposed from Nassau County on Long Island, where I hailed from until the property taxes turned into something that demanded the title of "vigorish". When the tax escrow is the largest part of your mortgage, leaving town is the order of the day.
 
Unfortunately, the new Governor will not go along with it any more than the State Legislature will. The teacher's unions won't have it.
 
One can never fully comprehend arguments for pro-choice until you understand that the first priority is not the fate of the child in question, but the control of a woman over her own body. Similarly, one can never fully comprehend the priorities of public school teachers until you understand that the education of children is secondary to the power of the unions.
 
This is why Ms. Weingarten allows the schools in New York City to rot at times, rather than do anything but kowtow to the pay structures, tenure systems and contract negotiation styles of the surrounding suburbs, where certified teachers are among the highest paid in the country.
 
In those golden suburbs, the districts and the teachers negotiate their contracts and then present the finished product to you as "administrative costs" in a budget. You balk at the price and you are presented as heartless towards the future of the little children.
 
If you get tired of your taxes being mandated to support this game even if you pull your children out and send them to private school, you are a basket case of a higher order. Even if you are a large group of parents in the Bronx or Brooklyn who think schools that need metal detectors are harebrained, but you can't afford anything else.
 
Not that it matters. New York is one of the many states with a Blaine Amendment in the state Constitution, which guarantees the tax mandate and no vouchers forever.
 
New York will continue to tax homeoners into migration. Long Island will be a land of professionals who can afford the insane taxes, Seniors who can't sell their houses and immigrants who pay rent. Either way, they will tend more and more Democrat in their voting habits, as has been the pattern since 1970.
 
You all deserve what you get, New York. I was born there, I loved living there. Thank the Lord I left.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Electoral Superdelegates?

Until I realized the depths to whch moral relativism could take a thinking being, I would never have understood how anyone could support the concept of superdelegates and simultaneously rail against the Electoral College.
 
I understand the Electoral College has a partial basis in birth as a control of the election process by the aristocracy. There is a larger purpose to it, though. It prevents a national candidate from trying to win an election by parking their time and money in the twelve largest cities in the country. It forces one to campaign in the rural areas, too. It makes all the voters count for something.
 
I can understand how Democrats might feel they got hosed in 2000. Every election we have ever had where the loser had the greater popular vote engendered those feelings.
 
What I don't understand is how one can propose an abolition of the Electoral College while supporting a party that ponies up a series of party officials who get to have candidates buy them lunch and pick up their dry cleaning so when they "vote their conscience" (Ted Kennedy's concept of the whole thing), the party aristocracy can flip the proverbial bird at the proletariat primary voters at will.
 
This is the world of moral relativism. There is no need for consistency. Today's logic and yesterday's logic need not be reconciled. It's what is in the heart that counts.
 
Nuts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Am Racist....Again

I am a conservative. I have been since my worldview reached a limited maturity in high school. That's more than enough time to be accused of just about everything in the book.
 
I am a logical animal. I see people who disagree with me, and I take it as a disagreement in premises. This favor is rarely returned. My views are often presented back to me as some sort of personal deficiency, sometimes a personality disorder, sometimes a lack of intelligence or self-awareness.
 
It stands to reason then that my failure to support Barrack Obama this fall will not be a disagreement with him on the issues, but a fear of a Black person in the White House. I suppose there are people out there, even conservatives, that will reluctantly pack their bags and go on a guilt trip. I could declare myself color blind, I could list my Black friends, I could show them my Barry White albums or my knowledge of Grandmaster Flash. No matter. There never is an answer.
 
It is the basis of my intrigue in the possible candidacy of Colin Powell in 1996, despite my reservations about his obvious 'Vietnam Syndome' views towards the projection of military power in the modern world. Part of me wanted to campaign for a Black man and maybe shut these people up for good. Alas, that will never happen.
 
I think the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is nuts. I have my reasons, mostly because it doesn't even try to be consistent with current laws, and carves a right for one-on-one same sex marraige out of thin air. No matter. I am a homophobe.
 
I support the war on terror, and believe it will have to get even more aggressive to stay effective. I never served in the military, so I am a chicken hawk.
 
When I venture in to a debate with any of this, I am often forced to definitively prove a state of mind, which is something that is beyond the scope of even a licensed psychiatrist. So I walk away. End of discussion.
 
When the campaign for Presdient heats up this summer, and Barrack talks about unifying the country while his supporters talk about how criticism of him is inherently racist, you'll have to excuse my laughter. You don't think it is coming? Watch what happens when the first political commercial has McCain in color and his opponent in black and white- a political staple as old as the hills.
 
I will not buckle to this crap. I am a conservative.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jim McKay, R.I.P.

Jim McKay was a man who travelled in the rarefied broadcasting air of the Olymics, and the following week he would cornpone his way through a caber tossing competition in "Wide World Of Sports".
 
He served as straight man, counterpoint and sanity control for Howard Cosell in many venues. He was one of those voices, like Pat Summerall and Curt Gowdy, who were the background voices in so many living rooms for a generation.
 
His pinnacle in my mind was when he was forced into news correspondent on the spot service during the first terror incident of the modern era: the kidnapping and murder of the Isreali Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972.
 
He was part of a generation who were truly reporters, not pundits. He didn't try and put it all in perspective for us. He was a witness to a tragedy there, nothing more. It had a dignity to it that Keith Olberman wouldn't know on his best day.
 
Rest in Peace, Jim McKay. Our prayers are with your family.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Glass Ceiling?

Hillary finally concedes what everybody else knew was all over weeks ago.
 
She manages, as usual, to slap the face of her intended complimentee with her words. She didn't lose because Barrack was a better candidate. She lost because there still is a glass ceiling, and only those who voted for her were willing to look beyond it. Barrack's followers are all misogynists!
 
That is the logical extension of the "eighteen million cracks" now etched into it.
 
Did anybody else out there remember, for comparison's sake, Mitt Romney's gracious appeal for his voters to back McCain, when John clinched the nomination? There were no gratuitous insults, no "left handed" compliments, no ambiguous aphorisms.
 
Life must be such a chore when you are the center of the universe. That seems to be what keeps the Clinton marriage going- the shared trait of having an ego that has to be fed by the shovel full.
 
Earth to Obama: your response to her spot on the ticket should be, "You lost, stupid. Go away, and take Big Mouth with you".
 
Then again, rumor has it that part of her concession to him in order to move on in Barrack's world is Bill releasing the donor list from his library, which everybody knows he will never do.
 
Case closed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let The Negotiations Begin

The primary season is finally over. It took Barrack until the last day to clinch a majority of delegates.
 
Hillary did not stay in for her health. It is hard for somebody to run for that office and then call it off, especially after winning as much as she did.
 
She did not stay in to be in a bargaining position to retire her debt. She stayed in because she thought she could win. When she recently realized that the math showed she probably couldn't win enough delegates, she stayed in to show that he couldn't win without her.
 
Which means, ladies and germs, she wants the VP slot. She is trying to prove to Obama that the spate of losses he pulled in the last two months was evidence of the schism in the party of voters who were not immediately inclined to circle the wagons around him.
 
Let's see if Barrack is the poker player he makes himself out to be: he should go tell Hillary to suck rocks. Why should he take on $11M in extra debt when her voters will not only come around for him anyway, but will campaign enthusiastically when they realize what their alternative is?
 
The Iraq War is the 800 pound gorilla in the room in both parties- do the Hillary supporters honestly think they will carry through on their threat to not just sit this one out, but step in and vote for McCain? Not on your life!
 
Tell Hillary to go back to the Senate and find somebody who doesn't add to your baggage. That's not a "dream ticket". That's a nightmare. That's both ends of a ticket who won't play well in at least thirty states, for the same reasons.
 
Barrack has baggage that he has been able to step above because he is as yet undefined to many. Hillary's baggage has been documented for years- it is why the opening was created for some other Democrat to step in and fill. Obama was the one with the talent to fill that void.
 
He shouldn't feel a need to chase after in any way somebody who so many were trying to run away from.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Einstein Is Still The Game

I'm more than happy to jump off the poliical treadmill and wade into another pool that is a pet peeve of mine- the state of science.
 
No, I do not speak of environmentalism, that will appear another day. It is about physics- the great science of the early 20th century, lapped a few times later on by today's primary science, biology.
 
There is a reason why physics has passed from the center of discussion to a giant parlor game. We have lost sight of the goal. It's not anybody's fault, the goal is huge and ambitious. To develop a corollary for gravitation, electromagnetism and the various nuclear forces that make up the universe is a monstrous proposition. I think we lost sight of the forest and started staring too much at the trees when Albert Einstein died in 1955.
 
In "The Ascent Of Man", Jacob Bronowski said of Newton and Einstein that minds like that only comes along so often, and their genius was "the power to ask immensely simple questions". Then he said, "And when the answers are simple, too, you hear God thinking".
 
Einstein stated near the end that he had the Unified Field Theory in his pinky. He just couldn't figure out a way to get it from there to a chalkboard.
 
Now we have a universe that is expanding beyond the power of gravitation to ever pull it back, being drawn out by a heretofore unknown "dark matter". We also have hordes of physicists strangling themselves over models of the universe consisting of anywhere from twenty to fifty dimensions- the four we know and the remainder wrapped into each singular point. All running in circles to develop a mathematical consistency.
 
This is where "God does not play dice with the universe" comes in. Einstein's retort to Neils Bohr was not a casual remark- it was the core of his approach to theoretical physics- God would not set up a universe where the structure could not be broken down into a few simple rules.
 
There is nothing in such a seemingly simplistic approach that demands one walk away from any sort of steady state theory, or alternative bubble theory. It does not abrogate the possible existence of other universes. We are simply at a crossroads similar to the late 1880's, when the measurement instruments allowed Michelson and Morley to see that the speed of light was the same whether it was going in the same direction of the earth around the sun or opposite. That simply brought the notion that there was a problem with Newton beyond theory.
 
It took sime time for somebody with the intellect and the vision of an Einstein to tackle that. The crop of physicists out there today may well possess the intellect, but they don't have the vision.
 
I happen to think that God is a practitioner of the K.I.S.S. system- keep it simple, stupid. I think if you get away from Einstein's vision, you will never reach the goal. That is the aspect of quantum physics and the Heisenberg Theory that Albert railed against to his death- even though his work in 1905 was the primary basis of both.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Coming Election

One thing I'd like to state for the record up front: verbal gaffes are off my radar, for both candidates. They've been on the trail, speechifying and fund raising for over eighteen months now, and the heaviest five months are ahead of them. That's a trial that even the undead could not traverse unscathed. So if Obama seems to think that there are 57 states out there, I'll give him and his Ivy League education the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was the nicorettes and the caffeine talking. Cut them a break.
 
So I am going to do two things here: first, a quick break down of the electoral college (please be patient) and then an overview of Barrack's obstacles. Or, why this is McCain's election to lose.
 
This is based in reading the Rasmussen and Zogby polls (the most reliable ones out there), and deferring my occasional disagreements with Bob Novak's yeoman's work at similar analysis.
 
Here are the solid GOP states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. These constitute 169 electoral votes.
 
These are the states that are leaning GOP: Florida, Indiana, Lousiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. These total 101 votes.
 
The solid Dem states: California, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. These total 183 votes.
 
Leaning Democratic: Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These total 85 votes.
 
That makes it 270 for John McCain and 268 for Barrack Obama. The nightmare of 2000 all over again, no? Not quite. There are a few states that are very much in play for both sides, and for reasons I'll go into later here, I think there will be a margin in popular and electoral votes closer to 2004.
 
Hillary's biggest error this weekend is diverting herself from anything but her most compelling argument: she would be the party's strongest candidate in November. She would put New Mexico and Virginia in play. She also would not be handing over the national security issue a priori to McCain.
 
Rudy would have been a stronger candidate than John. He would have had John's independence from an unpopular incumbent, he also would have put Pennsylvania in contention and even made a game of New Jersey. He also knows how to play political hardball.
 
As it is, the deciders will probably be Michigan and Ohio. It's a fair bet that the DNC will have it's largest cordon of lawyers based in Cleveland in early November. They are always fighting the last war, and John Kerry is still convinced that the Cayahoga Republicans and the demons in the Diebold voting machines kept him from the White House.
 
Barrack will certainly lose a few points because he is Black, as Hillary would because she is a woman, and McCain will because he is old.
 
Those points will not cost him the election. He will lose precious votes because he is still a relative unknown to many people (including many with his bumper stickers already on their cars), and there is too much of an undercurrent out there that he is some sort of stealth Muslim. His ancestry does nothing to help this. His wild and raucous friends don't help either.
 
Then there is the patriotism thing. If he didn't want to wear a flag lapel pin, he should have stuck to something casual- "It's on my other suit". But he had to pull out the Ivy League, urban, counterculture elitist argument of how he was looking to create an "alternative" patriotism. In the vast hinterland they call flyover country in the DNC, the rubes expect you to wear your patriotism on your sleeve.
 
It is this issue that might cost him states like Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa and bring John near the 300 electoral votes I think he will end up with. The Democrats will spend the summer trying to sell Bush and McCain as Siamese twins. Who is going to sell Obama as Jimmy Carter revisited? Somebody tell McCain that he is going to be demonized anyway, he may as well get some cuevos and start hammering Barrack. This election has no high ground. Karl Rove would know this.
 
So there it is. The Dems look weak because they are still beating each other up in June and their party (being run into the ground by Howard Dean) is not raising money like their nominee is. The Republicans look weak because they are supporting a war we are all tired of, the nominee is still not getting cash from the conservative base (that will change) and the incumbent party has the price of gasoline around it's neck like a yoke.
 
It's still culture vs. counterculture, just like 2004. If McCain gets his electioneering act together, he wins. If he tries to be above it all, he may hand it to someone who, by 20th century standards, should have come no closer to election nationally than Adlai Stevenson.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Appeasement In Our Time

President Bush roiled anew about American appeasers in front of the Knesset. A hundred Democrats got their panties in a bunch all ot once, including Barack the Unifier. A wise old man told me once that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is probably the one you hit.
 
He is now trying to add "context" to the braggadoccio in his website about being the "only candidate" who is willing to negotiate with our enemies "without preconditions". He is purporting that "diplomatic preparations" are the magic wand that makes all this legitimate.
 
Mind you, we are already "negotiating" with our enemies. We are speaking to North Korea through the six party talks, and not getting anywhere. We are negotiating with Lebanon and Syria through our Secretary of State, and not getting anywhere. We are negotiating with Iran through Maliki and our own Iraq Ambassador, and not getting anywhere.
 
We bribed the North Koreans in 1994, and they reneged on their end afterward. We haven't gotten anything but words since.
 
We have been running the same treadmill in the Middle East for decades. In his chase for the Nobel Prize, Clinton in 2000 convinced the Isrealis to give Arafat and the PLO the best deals of their lives- and Yassir walked away from the table.
 
Now Barack wants a chance to get elected and win them over with his mellifluous words and his unifying ways. This not only gives them another four years to get their s**t together, but his presence as the head of the most powerful country on the planet in a room with them gives them legitamacy that is solid gold when trying to get fence-sitters in the region to try and go along with their jihad.
 
9/11 showed me the end of talking with these people. Unless Barack gets with that program, he will not get elected. Too many people who are not convinced as I am that war is the only remaining solution still have the skitters about talking with them like it was 1975.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Price of Oil

In the late 1970's, the second OPEC embargo hit us and the price of gasoline went over $1 a gallon for the first time. Economics 101 was not any different that today- the higher price of crude oil made it an incentive to find more oil sources and drill for them.
 
What was different then was that the leadership was the grizzled WWII vets who were running things at the time. They saw the higher prices as a political and security liability, and they had no problems getting out of the way of the oil producers. The end result was that the 1980's were a resurgence in domestic energy production, and the positive effect on the economy lasted the better part of two decades.
 
Economics 101 is still here. China and India are consuming oil in a big way, and so are many other countries in the Pacific Rim. More countries like Venezuela and others have jumped into the seller's market and made OPEC less powerful by contrast.
 
Add to that the coming instability in the Middle East, notably the Iran problem, and commodities brokers have no choice but to gamble that the price will be higher in the near future than not. The end result is light sweet crude at $130 a barrel anc climbing, and Americans paying an inflation adjusted all time high of $4 for a gallon of gas.
 
Mind you, the location of additional domestic oil reserves is documented. The oil companies are ready and able to tap them. We have more than enough to effectively get off the world market for decades, and oil would no longer be a national security issue.
 
What's different now is that Baby Boomers run the country, and between the NIMBY's and the environmentalists, additional domestic drilling is off the table. It would be bad enough if all they wanted was the development of alternatives. But they go deeper than that.
 
There was a column by Paul Krugman this week in the NY Times. He paints the possibility that we could eventually grow into the urban/ semi-urban world of Europe, where everybody drives a smaller car, doesn't have to drive as far and has learned to live with gas prices over $6 a gallon.
 
Ignore the extra space we have here. Let's go back to 1900, where most of America lived in the cities, and if you didn't, you were a farmer. Stop this suburbian/ exurbian silliness. We can all live in condos, and we will all listen to our neighbors eating dinner on the other side of the wall.
 
In other words, stop growing. The anti-sprawl people are taking over. The means to get past this are right in front of our faces, but the situation isn't harsh enough yet to do anything about it politically. As long as we aren't yet waiting on lines for gas, let the truckers suffer- as if they are part of a different world, not really supplying us with just about everything we consume.
 
When Jimmy Carter mused that maybe we should be paying what the Europeans do for gas, and appeared on television in a snappy cardigan to tell us that the answer was to turn down our thermostats, he was bum rushed from office the first chance we got.
 
Solar power and electric hybrid cars are an answer, they aren't THE answer. When Krugman talks about the energy independence of France, he avoids the issue of 70% of it's power coming from nuclear reactors- another verboten solution here.
 
Our prosperity after WWII created these arrogant idiots. Our prosperity after 1980 empowered them to rise above national survival and become arrogant adult idiots. In both cases, they live like vultures off a prosperity other people created.
 
It's too bad that things will have to reach the crisis point before they will get trampled over and Economics 101 can take over again. These people will die a footnote to history. I learned a long time ago that in economics, the farther you walk from Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, the more you walk a yellow brick road.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive