We do not recommend division of Iraq ... Such a devolution could not be managed on an orderly basis; and because Iraq's major cities are peopled by a mixture of warring groups (it could create a) humanitarian disaster or broad-based civil war. -- Iraq Study Group report
This is a report that only a one-worlder could love. One-worlders are those people who wish there was only one world government, and that they were in charge of it. True Americans realize that the less government the better, and what little you allow there to be, it's best to keep it close to home. This is why the 10th amendment came about; the one that limits federal government to only one or two key functions, with the states, or the people, in charge of everything else.
As one who has suggested on a number of occasions that my state respectfully secede from the Union, I am watchful of the sort of creeping tyranny where some group in some faraway province exerts fascist strong-arming on me.
It's easy to recognize the one-worlders. They are all oveer the place, and masquerade sometimes as shining examples of "the American Way". The U.S. supreme court acts in a one world fashion whenever they overturn legally enacted state laws (such as those reestricting abortion), or references foreign law in their rulings on purely American matters. Dick Lugar is a one-worlder. He wants the United Nations to have more power and invariably votes that way, as do many other US senators. This is insidious, and one of the many modern things we must be vigilant about.
So now, they want Iraq to be held together like there is some mysterious synergy in that outcome. The natural inclination is for people to resist central governments. None of the Iraqis will be free unless they can self govern. There are no proposals on the table that allow this to happen. The political hacks who have screwed us up over here (and all but decimated states rights) want the same thing for Iraq.
The solution (as it was with the former Soviet Union) is to allow the Kurdistanis, The Sunnis, and the Shiites to have their own governments, their own territories, and inherit and deal with their own problems. Otherwise, the minority party will sling real bombs into eternity; thinking (and they may be right) that the government is the cause of their problems.
So, Baker and Hamilton grab a bunch of people together and come up with this nonsense. Here's where we went wrong on the whole Iraqi thing (and you've heard me say this before): The military portion of this job ended years ago. We have no hope of making a lasting contribution in the political phase. Our own model is no longer worth copying. Since about 150 years ago, we've been fighting for our freedom against our particular "democracy". It's time to let the Iraqis find their own democracy, in their own way.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Early assessment
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. -- Ronald Reagan
There are elements on this planet that are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them. They speak as openly as Adolph Hitler did about their desire to kill us and we should honor them by believing they're sincere. -- Newt Gingrich
For most of the years I have been watching politics (and it started with my reading of Robert J. Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" in 1976), I have seen hopeful tendencies only twice. One was my slowly dawning realization of the beauty of Ronald Reagan and his policies. He used the twin weapons of commitment and communication. Every time he said "There they go again" I realized there was someone in charge who was on our side. When he said "Tear down this wall", you know he had 'that vision thing'.
When everything he called for came to pass without so much as one missile launched; you knew he not only had the right approach, he had the confidence of the world.
The second time I saw hope in action was Newt's 1994 "Contract with America" revolution. He had the Reagan-like commitment and the communication. As a history professor, he can cite chapter and verse where we went wrong. In case you don't know where that was, read the book.
The enemies of the people had no effect on Reagan, because Reagan was right for the time and for the state of the world. He, nor the people, would be swayed by the enemies of the people.
Gingrich has inherited that banner. He is quite probably the only one out there we can trust with the job. This is why you will see the enemies of the people pulling out all the stops early and often.
Those enemies miscalculated on Reagan. Tried to frame him as a shallow actor. The world saw him as a leader.
The enemies of the people will characterize Newt as a megalomaniacal hayseed. The people will see Gingrich as a leader.
There are elements on this planet that are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them. They speak as openly as Adolph Hitler did about their desire to kill us and we should honor them by believing they're sincere. -- Newt Gingrich
For most of the years I have been watching politics (and it started with my reading of Robert J. Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" in 1976), I have seen hopeful tendencies only twice. One was my slowly dawning realization of the beauty of Ronald Reagan and his policies. He used the twin weapons of commitment and communication. Every time he said "There they go again" I realized there was someone in charge who was on our side. When he said "Tear down this wall", you know he had 'that vision thing'.
When everything he called for came to pass without so much as one missile launched; you knew he not only had the right approach, he had the confidence of the world.
The second time I saw hope in action was Newt's 1994 "Contract with America" revolution. He had the Reagan-like commitment and the communication. As a history professor, he can cite chapter and verse where we went wrong. In case you don't know where that was, read the book.
The enemies of the people had no effect on Reagan, because Reagan was right for the time and for the state of the world. He, nor the people, would be swayed by the enemies of the people.
Gingrich has inherited that banner. He is quite probably the only one out there we can trust with the job. This is why you will see the enemies of the people pulling out all the stops early and often.
Those enemies miscalculated on Reagan. Tried to frame him as a shallow actor. The world saw him as a leader.
The enemies of the people will characterize Newt as a megalomaniacal hayseed. The people will see Gingrich as a leader.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Thanks, Mickey, but No Thanks!
Today, anonymous posted this offering from Michael Moore. As a public service to the non whackos in the audience, the Wizer will now analyze and comment on the letter. Talk about a target rich environment! Please understannd, that the message is directed to conservatives and republicans, but I couldn't resist the urge to answer for them. Not all of them agree with me, just as not all dems agree with MM.
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
Translation: Grab your wallets!
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Mike, are you talking to conservatives or republicans here? If you don't know the difference, there is much to fill you in on...I'll let it go for now.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress,
Millions? Don't you mean dozens of others who are now in charge?
have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Why do the words "do to you" cause shivers to race up my spine?
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
Well, that's 55% of us, anyway.
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
Did you get all your millions of friends to agree to this? Seems like you are in the minority in your particular wing on this. Just wanted to make sure there was a consensus.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
Of course, it will be necessary for all of us to subsidize your preferences by extending benefits to whoever you want to call your wife. Or whatever, as the case may be. Admit it. This is a scam to get corporations to pay for health benefits for your friends. As such, it's a program I'm not interested in subsidizing. No thanks, Mike.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
I'm not hearing Robert Rubin, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi say this. Have you checked with them? They are talking about higher energy costs, higher environmental controls and higher taxes right off the bat. My grandchildren will have a much easier time holding onto my inheritance if you keep those jokers away from the policymaking.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
If you bring them home in such a way as to allow Iraq to fall back into the hands of terrorists, our sons and daughters will know they are not safe until they go back and do the job for good. The only lie is the one you are telling when you say this wasn't necessary.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
When the health care system is run by the bureaucrats, there won't be anyone working on stem cells. First of all, the money never gets there. Second of all, the doctors will be payed the same for playing golf or working up stem cells. The worlds greatest health care system will be destroyed. Mike, why do you think it is the best system in the world? Because it is the closest thing to a free market medical system that exists.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
When there's a difference worth paying for, come tell me about it. Right now it's just a game you're playing with a bunch of biased government dependent researchers.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
How can you say that one with a straight face given A) Bill Clinton's total lapse on Bin Laden, and B) what you just said on item #4 above? My God Michael, at least disguise your hypocrisy a little better than that.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
What are you saying here? That the unborn are expendable? Man, that hardly makes you seem like the magnanimous, inclusive figure you want to be seen as. "To all conservatives and republicans who have made it this far...."
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
Okay, so, I should not feel so bad that the person who just shot me did it with a gun that was illegal. Let's make more of them illegal. That will make me feel safer. Not. I don't even have to invoke the second amendment to show the folly of this reason.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
What you want is for everybody to be paid the same. And for that wage to be low for everybody. It's been tried before, you know. But the Soviet Union crashed and burned. It fails every time it is tried. You want to see everybody in the toilet paper line? Oh, I forgot. You've already made your millions. You can tough it out from here.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
What about your favorite radical religion: environmentalism? Isn't it disengenuous to be pushing your pagan agenda against the backdrop of accusing religious groups of doing the same? It's called freedom of religion for a reason. And it is well known that God blesses America. Live with it.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
Nice words. Talk to me about William Jefferson of Louisiana.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com
Michael, I have not seen this many fat pitches since the company picnic. Thanks for letting me swing away.
Sincerely,
The Wizer.
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
Translation: Grab your wallets!
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Mike, are you talking to conservatives or republicans here? If you don't know the difference, there is much to fill you in on...I'll let it go for now.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress,
Millions? Don't you mean dozens of others who are now in charge?
have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Why do the words "do to you" cause shivers to race up my spine?
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
Well, that's 55% of us, anyway.
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
Did you get all your millions of friends to agree to this? Seems like you are in the minority in your particular wing on this. Just wanted to make sure there was a consensus.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
Of course, it will be necessary for all of us to subsidize your preferences by extending benefits to whoever you want to call your wife. Or whatever, as the case may be. Admit it. This is a scam to get corporations to pay for health benefits for your friends. As such, it's a program I'm not interested in subsidizing. No thanks, Mike.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
I'm not hearing Robert Rubin, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi say this. Have you checked with them? They are talking about higher energy costs, higher environmental controls and higher taxes right off the bat. My grandchildren will have a much easier time holding onto my inheritance if you keep those jokers away from the policymaking.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
If you bring them home in such a way as to allow Iraq to fall back into the hands of terrorists, our sons and daughters will know they are not safe until they go back and do the job for good. The only lie is the one you are telling when you say this wasn't necessary.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
When the health care system is run by the bureaucrats, there won't be anyone working on stem cells. First of all, the money never gets there. Second of all, the doctors will be payed the same for playing golf or working up stem cells. The worlds greatest health care system will be destroyed. Mike, why do you think it is the best system in the world? Because it is the closest thing to a free market medical system that exists.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
When there's a difference worth paying for, come tell me about it. Right now it's just a game you're playing with a bunch of biased government dependent researchers.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
How can you say that one with a straight face given A) Bill Clinton's total lapse on Bin Laden, and B) what you just said on item #4 above? My God Michael, at least disguise your hypocrisy a little better than that.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
What are you saying here? That the unborn are expendable? Man, that hardly makes you seem like the magnanimous, inclusive figure you want to be seen as. "To all conservatives and republicans who have made it this far...."
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
Okay, so, I should not feel so bad that the person who just shot me did it with a gun that was illegal. Let's make more of them illegal. That will make me feel safer. Not. I don't even have to invoke the second amendment to show the folly of this reason.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
What you want is for everybody to be paid the same. And for that wage to be low for everybody. It's been tried before, you know. But the Soviet Union crashed and burned. It fails every time it is tried. You want to see everybody in the toilet paper line? Oh, I forgot. You've already made your millions. You can tough it out from here.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
What about your favorite radical religion: environmentalism? Isn't it disengenuous to be pushing your pagan agenda against the backdrop of accusing religious groups of doing the same? It's called freedom of religion for a reason. And it is well known that God blesses America. Live with it.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
Nice words. Talk to me about William Jefferson of Louisiana.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com
Michael, I have not seen this many fat pitches since the company picnic. Thanks for letting me swing away.
Sincerely,
The Wizer.
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.
Friday, November 10, 2006
After further review...
When a fellow tells me he is bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me. -- Harry S Truman
I was considerably more optimistic yesterday before I heard the press conference from George W. Bush. You recall, I was talking about gridlock, and how much better things were going to be because of it. Then, I heard George tell anyone who is still listening that he is claiming defeat on all sorts of things not even at issue. He plans to resurrect the guest worker program. He plans to find "common ground" with Nancy Pelosi (Ha! ...Ha! Ha!) on minimum wage.
Was he a democrat all along? Don't blame me. I voted for Phil Gramm. I do think that things are going to get worse here, before they get better. But that creates a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the differences between good and evil for 2008.
I was considerably more optimistic yesterday before I heard the press conference from George W. Bush. You recall, I was talking about gridlock, and how much better things were going to be because of it. Then, I heard George tell anyone who is still listening that he is claiming defeat on all sorts of things not even at issue. He plans to resurrect the guest worker program. He plans to find "common ground" with Nancy Pelosi (Ha! ...Ha! Ha!) on minimum wage.
Was he a democrat all along? Don't blame me. I voted for Phil Gramm. I do think that things are going to get worse here, before they get better. But that creates a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the differences between good and evil for 2008.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
We WON!
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. – US House Congressional Resolution 48 "A Republic; not a Democracy", sponsored by Ron Paul, 3/6/01.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. – James Madison (1751-1836)
By the end of the election season, the best any of us could hope for was gridlock. and That's what I voted for.
If the vote is our only weapon, then it must be thusly leveraged. We are often forced into bad decisions to illustrate badness to a new generation of voters. And a new generation of congressmen is not a bad result per se'. It's just that a wrong turn, whether it's right or left, still leaves us short of our goal.
The press is quick to claim that the war in Iraq had something to do with the results of the election. That is simply wrong. As I've repeated here many times, the war has been over for 2 years. So a lot of people still don't know what this was about.
What it was about is this: The republicans were acting like democrats by squandering the country's resources without good cause. In the process, they were creating the biggest and most intrusive government since the Great Society. No wonder people were confused enough to vote for democrats.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. – James Madison (1751-1836)
By the end of the election season, the best any of us could hope for was gridlock. and That's what I voted for.
If the vote is our only weapon, then it must be thusly leveraged. We are often forced into bad decisions to illustrate badness to a new generation of voters. And a new generation of congressmen is not a bad result per se'. It's just that a wrong turn, whether it's right or left, still leaves us short of our goal.
The press is quick to claim that the war in Iraq had something to do with the results of the election. That is simply wrong. As I've repeated here many times, the war has been over for 2 years. So a lot of people still don't know what this was about.
What it was about is this: The republicans were acting like democrats by squandering the country's resources without good cause. In the process, they were creating the biggest and most intrusive government since the Great Society. No wonder people were confused enough to vote for democrats.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Let's have our election
A democracy is a place where numerous elections are held, at great cost, without issues, and with interchangeable candidates. – Gore Vidal
Lets have our election, shall we? It's really a lot like the Super Bowl for political aficianados. For most of us regular guys, it resembles the Super Bowl that has two teams we don't really care about; but you know we have to root for someone. They only let two teams play in it after all, and one of them is usually favored to win by 51% or so of the populace.
On the one side, we have the underdog republicans, who after fumbling away nearly every scoring opportunity since 1994 find themselves in a position to tie the game at the final gun. On the other sideline is the democrats who had benefitted from the republican ineptitude that seemed to get worse with every election cycle. Inexplicably, they put John Kerry in at QB, and he singlehandedly resurrected the chances for the GOP by throwing an interception to the military.
It's easy to believe that John Kerry changed the dynamic, but I think differently; I believe that most Americans already knew who John Kerry is. The real reason the polls are shifting now is that ---surprise!--- they were never accurate to begin with. The interesting fact of polling is that you can design a poll to get whatever results you want. If you want a 15% Democrat lead, you can manufacture one. The motivation to do so is very strong.The psychology of weak minded people is that they want to side with the winner; so the polls are designed to sway the last of the weak minded individuals over to one side. The polling organizations have to show a closing gap, or be exposed to high levels of error when the true results are counted.
So, look for all the polls to close to within 2 % (the real difference) sometime today. They probably have enough weak minded voters by now to get the job done. It might be fun to see the underdog pull one out, though.
Lets have our election, shall we? It's really a lot like the Super Bowl for political aficianados. For most of us regular guys, it resembles the Super Bowl that has two teams we don't really care about; but you know we have to root for someone. They only let two teams play in it after all, and one of them is usually favored to win by 51% or so of the populace.
On the one side, we have the underdog republicans, who after fumbling away nearly every scoring opportunity since 1994 find themselves in a position to tie the game at the final gun. On the other sideline is the democrats who had benefitted from the republican ineptitude that seemed to get worse with every election cycle. Inexplicably, they put John Kerry in at QB, and he singlehandedly resurrected the chances for the GOP by throwing an interception to the military.
It's easy to believe that John Kerry changed the dynamic, but I think differently; I believe that most Americans already knew who John Kerry is. The real reason the polls are shifting now is that ---surprise!--- they were never accurate to begin with. The interesting fact of polling is that you can design a poll to get whatever results you want. If you want a 15% Democrat lead, you can manufacture one. The motivation to do so is very strong.The psychology of weak minded people is that they want to side with the winner; so the polls are designed to sway the last of the weak minded individuals over to one side. The polling organizations have to show a closing gap, or be exposed to high levels of error when the true results are counted.
So, look for all the polls to close to within 2 % (the real difference) sometime today. They probably have enough weak minded voters by now to get the job done. It might be fun to see the underdog pull one out, though.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Mid-term elections
Political elections do not choose leaders of society. Rather, they are an exercise in which groups of people choose individuals who will assist them in looting other groups of individuals, those folks who were unfortunate enough not to be able to elect their own political strongman. The process can be downright blatant, as is the case in African and Asian countries, or it can be relatively subtle as it is in the United States, where the trappings of "constitutionality" and "rule of law" hide many of the more nefarious goings on. – William Anderson, Are Politicians Leaders? 10/19/2000
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. – George Eliot
As you can probably tell from the lack of posts, I've had a hard time mustering up a commentary on the state of the elections. However, a quick review of previous posts will show that I tend to post here on matters that have long-term impact. Supreme Court nominations; government entitlement programs, things like that. That is why there isn't much to say about the upcoming elections. Either way the bulk of the races go, the likelihood of real progress is exceedingly low. The party in power has squandered 90-95% of the opportunity to reverse decades of abuse and waste. The democrats could hardly "improve" on that number.
Sure, there are things that still matter: The necessity of showing our enemies that they have no future in this world. The blessings of the world"s greatest economy. The true dividend of freedom and prosperity, which is the betterent of all humankind. These things stand to take some hits if the wrong party gets elected (note to anonymous, the democrats are still the wrong party).
But the republicans don't stand for what is right any more, either. Yes I know that the next two years could be a major setback for all of us, but I think we get that either way. The only thing I can be sure of is if the democrats get in, they will decimate and make a total botch job of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then will spend the rest of their time trying to undo the meager economic improvements of the last six years. The only good that will come out of a republican defeat is the proverbial "wake-up call" that they've been needing. I can't think of a good reason to vote for a democrat, but that one comes close.
I believe that 90% of everybody sees through the phony Mark Foley issue, and the Harry Reid stuff on the other side of the aisle. The 10% who don't always vote for dems anyway. So, what will the other 90 be thinking going into election season? I suspect it will be "let's give these other guys a shot at it". It would have all been so unnecessary if the republicans would have simply dusted off the Contract With America, and used it as a playbook for the last two years.
If the democrats win, I think Newt runs in 2008.
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. – George Eliot
As you can probably tell from the lack of posts, I've had a hard time mustering up a commentary on the state of the elections. However, a quick review of previous posts will show that I tend to post here on matters that have long-term impact. Supreme Court nominations; government entitlement programs, things like that. That is why there isn't much to say about the upcoming elections. Either way the bulk of the races go, the likelihood of real progress is exceedingly low. The party in power has squandered 90-95% of the opportunity to reverse decades of abuse and waste. The democrats could hardly "improve" on that number.
Sure, there are things that still matter: The necessity of showing our enemies that they have no future in this world. The blessings of the world"s greatest economy. The true dividend of freedom and prosperity, which is the betterent of all humankind. These things stand to take some hits if the wrong party gets elected (note to anonymous, the democrats are still the wrong party).
But the republicans don't stand for what is right any more, either. Yes I know that the next two years could be a major setback for all of us, but I think we get that either way. The only thing I can be sure of is if the democrats get in, they will decimate and make a total botch job of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then will spend the rest of their time trying to undo the meager economic improvements of the last six years. The only good that will come out of a republican defeat is the proverbial "wake-up call" that they've been needing. I can't think of a good reason to vote for a democrat, but that one comes close.
I believe that 90% of everybody sees through the phony Mark Foley issue, and the Harry Reid stuff on the other side of the aisle. The 10% who don't always vote for dems anyway. So, what will the other 90 be thinking going into election season? I suspect it will be "let's give these other guys a shot at it". It would have all been so unnecessary if the republicans would have simply dusted off the Contract With America, and used it as a playbook for the last two years.
If the democrats win, I think Newt runs in 2008.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Drawbridges
"The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage." -- Tony Blair
" Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Winston Churchill
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." -- Winston Churchill
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
“Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.” -- Ronald Reagan
I can think of several good outcomes if we simply do raise the drawbridge. Starting, of course, with the deportation of the United Nations. "Nobody else wants to deal with the serious issues of the planet? Fine. We were only playing this silly geopolitical game of yours to be good global citizens." If the work of the UN is patently against our interests (and the evidence continues to pile on that it is), we should take the hint, and be happy to go play in our own back yard.
What happens in 2012 when Turkey is overrun by Iran? Will the euro-clowns across the Mediterranean then begin to see the danger? Maybe the only way to prepare Europe is to let it happen. We'll all be better off when the French and the rest of the world have to face and deal with this crisis. They'll be much easier to get along with once they realize that we are not the problem. I'm tired of being the solution to the problem they don't think they have.
We need to be vigilant and respond with urgency to every threat on US person and property. Beyond that, I can count on one hand the number of countries we actually need to protect and support.
" Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Winston Churchill
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." -- Winston Churchill
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
“Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.” -- Ronald Reagan
I can think of several good outcomes if we simply do raise the drawbridge. Starting, of course, with the deportation of the United Nations. "Nobody else wants to deal with the serious issues of the planet? Fine. We were only playing this silly geopolitical game of yours to be good global citizens." If the work of the UN is patently against our interests (and the evidence continues to pile on that it is), we should take the hint, and be happy to go play in our own back yard.
What happens in 2012 when Turkey is overrun by Iran? Will the euro-clowns across the Mediterranean then begin to see the danger? Maybe the only way to prepare Europe is to let it happen. We'll all be better off when the French and the rest of the world have to face and deal with this crisis. They'll be much easier to get along with once they realize that we are not the problem. I'm tired of being the solution to the problem they don't think they have.
We need to be vigilant and respond with urgency to every threat on US person and property. Beyond that, I can count on one hand the number of countries we actually need to protect and support.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Bush Doctrine
America has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and even more our resolve. Our nation is patient and steadfast. We continue to pursue the terrorists in cities and camps and caves across the earth. We are joined by a great coalition of nations to rid the world of terror. And we will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass murder. Now and in the future, Americans will live as free people, not in fear, and never at the mercy of any foreign plot or power. -- George W. Bush, 9/11/2002.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world. -- Natan Sharansky, 4/24/2006
It is, indeed, a war that one might believe only a Wilsonian Democrat was capable of starting. But it was not Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson who ordered the march on Baghdad; it was President Bush, who had previously proclaimed his contempt for “nation-building” in foreign places, only to embark on one of this country’s greatest nation-building crusades. -- Jon Harrison, August 2006
I'm not into celebrating the anniversaries of national tragedies, like all other media seem to be doing today, however it does seem like a good time to see where the last five years have taken us. It is important to understand why there is such a distinction being drawn between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Most Patriots would agree that the correct response to 9/11 is to raze Afghanistan and wipe Taliban from the world's vocabulary. For good measure, a total decimation of Al Qaeda seemed necessary. In short, slapping down our enemies and anyone who looks like them is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. It sends the right message at the right time to the terrorists.
Now, here's the thing. I don't give a damn whether Iraq becomes a democracy. I don't think it is at all necessary for us to define the type of republic Iraq should become. Nobody over there is ever going to like or trust a government established by a foreign country, let alone the US of A. Sure, we have total faith in the way we do things, but hey, it's their country; let them sort it out on their own. The quicker we leave it to their collective judgement, the quicker they will find peace. Now, I know what you are going to say: "The region will deteriorate into civil war and chaos when we leave". Guess what? That will happen whether we leave in 2008, or 2018, or 2118. This is a godless society that may never recognize truth, faith, and fundamental freedom. They certainly won't be more inclined to embrace it just because we are camped out in their back yard.
Do I have a problem with what happened to Saddam? Not at all. He was begging to be taken out. The Iranians and Syrians are doing pretty much the same. Does it have to be us doing the dirty work? Probably so. But, we don't need to be putting up oil wells, roads, and schoolhouses everywhere we go. This Wilsonian view of George's (i.e., make the world safe for democracy) is going to make matters worse for some time. After further review, I have concluded that the healing does not start until we go home.
Yes, we need to continue to eradicate terrorists, and a few taped phone calls don't make me nervous at all about our essential freedoms (It's funny how many of our laws really only protect the guilty). I assure you our freedoms are being more insidiously attacked in other areas than in this one. We did it to ourselves by letting the government get as big as it is. The solution to that is to retire 80% of the government, but then that would put the average congressman's best friends out of work. I digress.
If, as it appears to me, all of our enemies are terrorists, we should do everything we need to do to defeat them. This means "profiling". This means "stealth bombing". This means necessary and messy miltary ops. But there should be no question of what our military should be used for. It is not an orphanage. It is not a bridge building crew. It is not a diplomacy entourage. I'm not asking for a "timetable" I'm simply noting that the parts of this mission that are related to nation building are fundamentally flawed.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world. -- Natan Sharansky, 4/24/2006
It is, indeed, a war that one might believe only a Wilsonian Democrat was capable of starting. But it was not Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson who ordered the march on Baghdad; it was President Bush, who had previously proclaimed his contempt for “nation-building” in foreign places, only to embark on one of this country’s greatest nation-building crusades. -- Jon Harrison, August 2006
I'm not into celebrating the anniversaries of national tragedies, like all other media seem to be doing today, however it does seem like a good time to see where the last five years have taken us. It is important to understand why there is such a distinction being drawn between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Most Patriots would agree that the correct response to 9/11 is to raze Afghanistan and wipe Taliban from the world's vocabulary. For good measure, a total decimation of Al Qaeda seemed necessary. In short, slapping down our enemies and anyone who looks like them is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. It sends the right message at the right time to the terrorists.
Now, here's the thing. I don't give a damn whether Iraq becomes a democracy. I don't think it is at all necessary for us to define the type of republic Iraq should become. Nobody over there is ever going to like or trust a government established by a foreign country, let alone the US of A. Sure, we have total faith in the way we do things, but hey, it's their country; let them sort it out on their own. The quicker we leave it to their collective judgement, the quicker they will find peace. Now, I know what you are going to say: "The region will deteriorate into civil war and chaos when we leave". Guess what? That will happen whether we leave in 2008, or 2018, or 2118. This is a godless society that may never recognize truth, faith, and fundamental freedom. They certainly won't be more inclined to embrace it just because we are camped out in their back yard.
Do I have a problem with what happened to Saddam? Not at all. He was begging to be taken out. The Iranians and Syrians are doing pretty much the same. Does it have to be us doing the dirty work? Probably so. But, we don't need to be putting up oil wells, roads, and schoolhouses everywhere we go. This Wilsonian view of George's (i.e., make the world safe for democracy) is going to make matters worse for some time. After further review, I have concluded that the healing does not start until we go home.
Yes, we need to continue to eradicate terrorists, and a few taped phone calls don't make me nervous at all about our essential freedoms (It's funny how many of our laws really only protect the guilty). I assure you our freedoms are being more insidiously attacked in other areas than in this one. We did it to ourselves by letting the government get as big as it is. The solution to that is to retire 80% of the government, but then that would put the average congressman's best friends out of work. I digress.
If, as it appears to me, all of our enemies are terrorists, we should do everything we need to do to defeat them. This means "profiling". This means "stealth bombing". This means necessary and messy miltary ops. But there should be no question of what our military should be used for. It is not an orphanage. It is not a bridge building crew. It is not a diplomacy entourage. I'm not asking for a "timetable" I'm simply noting that the parts of this mission that are related to nation building are fundamentally flawed.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Minimum Rage
The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws. We regard the minimum wage law as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books. – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
"There ain't a dime's worth of difference between em, Hoss" --Waylon Jennings, quoting George Wallace.
So now the GOP house is passing laws in order to kill them. Swell. They are sounding and acting like Democrats more with each passing day. Okay, so the Democrats are hopelessly conflicted and rudderless. This doesn't really matter with the Republicans doing all your heavy lifting for you. What still puzzles me is why putting all our young people out of work is considered a good way to end the death tax....or maybe not because we can count on the senate to kill it. Sheesh.
Meanwhile, the media is pointing over to the middle east, and saying "Look! Fireworks!" Yeah, like that hasn't happened before. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that Isreal vs. Iran already sounds like a fair fight. Let them go at it for a while, and give me monthly status reports. I really don't see what interests are at stake for us. We already went the extra mile on Al Qaeda. That should demonstrate to the third world that we are not pussy-footing around. To have us get sucked in to every mortar shelling going on around the world is truly mindless and dissipative.
Hello, media, the action is right here! The government is doing more damage to us than Hezbollah's wildest dreams! How about defending the constitution for a change? How about picking on a few national tragedies that truly create division, poverty, strife, and dependence?
The saddest thing about 9/11 is that we gave up so much freedom in exchange for a security that does not and can not ever exist. By defeating Al Qaeda we did all that was possible and necessary. Every time a new provision of the Patriot Act is implemented we give the enemies of freedom another sign that they are having an effect. Let's get off this hellbound train before it consumes us all.
Meanwhile, all we are getting from our representation is warmed over socialism as a mechanism to fool the people. Hard to be a political junkie in this environment.
I'm sure I'll find more to remark upon soon, but pobably not before election season. Even the thought of that is a little demoralizing right now. I predict the GOP in a yawner followed by more of the same. As I've said before, the only thing worse would be a Democrat win, but now more than ever, I don't see a dime's worth of difference to be had.
"There ain't a dime's worth of difference between em, Hoss" --Waylon Jennings, quoting George Wallace.
So now the GOP house is passing laws in order to kill them. Swell. They are sounding and acting like Democrats more with each passing day. Okay, so the Democrats are hopelessly conflicted and rudderless. This doesn't really matter with the Republicans doing all your heavy lifting for you. What still puzzles me is why putting all our young people out of work is considered a good way to end the death tax....or maybe not because we can count on the senate to kill it. Sheesh.
Meanwhile, the media is pointing over to the middle east, and saying "Look! Fireworks!" Yeah, like that hasn't happened before. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that Isreal vs. Iran already sounds like a fair fight. Let them go at it for a while, and give me monthly status reports. I really don't see what interests are at stake for us. We already went the extra mile on Al Qaeda. That should demonstrate to the third world that we are not pussy-footing around. To have us get sucked in to every mortar shelling going on around the world is truly mindless and dissipative.
Hello, media, the action is right here! The government is doing more damage to us than Hezbollah's wildest dreams! How about defending the constitution for a change? How about picking on a few national tragedies that truly create division, poverty, strife, and dependence?
The saddest thing about 9/11 is that we gave up so much freedom in exchange for a security that does not and can not ever exist. By defeating Al Qaeda we did all that was possible and necessary. Every time a new provision of the Patriot Act is implemented we give the enemies of freedom another sign that they are having an effect. Let's get off this hellbound train before it consumes us all.
Meanwhile, all we are getting from our representation is warmed over socialism as a mechanism to fool the people. Hard to be a political junkie in this environment.
I'm sure I'll find more to remark upon soon, but pobably not before election season. Even the thought of that is a little demoralizing right now. I predict the GOP in a yawner followed by more of the same. As I've said before, the only thing worse would be a Democrat win, but now more than ever, I don't see a dime's worth of difference to be had.
Friday, June 30, 2006
News Media
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers. – Thomas Jefferson
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. – Thomas Paine
It seems that the motto of the Mainstream Media is that the truth is no longer newsworthy. This was certainly the case during the 2004 elections, in which no media attention was given to the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not surprising for the media to have sat on that news when you consider that wide dissemination of that truth would not have sold more newspapers. In effect, it marked the end of the election, and people would clearly have rejected the candidate and moved on. No need to read anything more about Kerry since he was a damaged candidate, so the motivation of keeping the game close for newspaper sales can be seen as purely capitalistic (something the Wizer will much more easily forgive than he would intentional political bias).
Indeed, CBS then did their best to keep the election close by publishing false accounts of the potentially damaging National Guard story. Sure, the "news" would sell, but the truth takes a hit. That's where the News Media begins to lose their halo.
Now, we have the confirmation of a truth that we all already knew, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, I would surmise that a headline that said "WMD's Found" would have sold the day's quota of newspapers, so profit was clearly not the motivator for suppressing this news.
It was also a good opportunity for the newspapers to show that they are balanced, because the erroneous "no WMD" storyline was advanced for 3 years as if it had some credence.
Consumers of truth are now moving on to other more reliable news outlets, ones collectively known as "The New Media". You are reading one now. You can find them on the internet 24/7 as long as there are those who care enough to bring it to you. This is something to celebrate.
As for the Mainstream Media, well, I would avoid buying stock in these outlets.
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. – Thomas Paine
It seems that the motto of the Mainstream Media is that the truth is no longer newsworthy. This was certainly the case during the 2004 elections, in which no media attention was given to the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not surprising for the media to have sat on that news when you consider that wide dissemination of that truth would not have sold more newspapers. In effect, it marked the end of the election, and people would clearly have rejected the candidate and moved on. No need to read anything more about Kerry since he was a damaged candidate, so the motivation of keeping the game close for newspaper sales can be seen as purely capitalistic (something the Wizer will much more easily forgive than he would intentional political bias).
Indeed, CBS then did their best to keep the election close by publishing false accounts of the potentially damaging National Guard story. Sure, the "news" would sell, but the truth takes a hit. That's where the News Media begins to lose their halo.
Now, we have the confirmation of a truth that we all already knew, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, I would surmise that a headline that said "WMD's Found" would have sold the day's quota of newspapers, so profit was clearly not the motivator for suppressing this news.
It was also a good opportunity for the newspapers to show that they are balanced, because the erroneous "no WMD" storyline was advanced for 3 years as if it had some credence.
Consumers of truth are now moving on to other more reliable news outlets, ones collectively known as "The New Media". You are reading one now. You can find them on the internet 24/7 as long as there are those who care enough to bring it to you. This is something to celebrate.
As for the Mainstream Media, well, I would avoid buying stock in these outlets.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Talk Radio
I often marvel at the phenomenon that is Rush Limbaugh. As a former radio personality in the 70's I can admire what he has accomplished in the radio game, a series of achievements that us lesser mortals couldn't foresee from behind our microphones (gold plated or not).
On the surface it is pretty simple to analyze. He has a talk show where his success derives from advocating popular positions, and then painting a vivid picture of "the other guy", this many headed monster which can be branded with an L. Never mind that there is no such thing as the L-monster...Rush is able to convince his audience that the same person who advocates unlimited immigration is the same one who would vote against prop 187. Not too likely that that person exists, but it's a useful boogeyman for what Rush tries to do.
For those who would try to be the antidote to Rush, well, the first mistake is they play on his terms. Namely, they will advocate the positions Rush does not (by definition, the "unpopular" ones), and then try to defend the L-monster, which as I said does not really exist. They wind up lookinf pretty stupid.
Those people are doomed to failure, at least if success means radio audience share (and I think it does). Rush is about as prescient as Nostradamus, who proves only to be "right" after the fact. Rush, for example, is very late weighing in with an opinion on immigration, despite acknowledging for several years that a lot of people care about it. Well, sure, or he wouldn't even have mentioned it in the first place.
So, what would be a reasonable approach for someone who would like to emulate Rush's radio success? Well, for starters, talk about popular things, like budget discipline, limited government, and NAFTA related issues. These are topics Rush avoids for some reason. Then, try to assemble a credible enemy monster comprised with the many heads of Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Schumer; and I guarantee better results than Air America and the sum total of the nuveau commie communicative collective.
The guy is good because he's mostly right. The persons who go against him typically do so by advocating the "wrong". What's keeping the talent away? Surely there's no monopoly on truth. The problem is many radio wannabes feel they must start from the corner Rush paints them into.
Brian Maloney follows the talk radio scene with his informative blog.
On the surface it is pretty simple to analyze. He has a talk show where his success derives from advocating popular positions, and then painting a vivid picture of "the other guy", this many headed monster which can be branded with an L. Never mind that there is no such thing as the L-monster...Rush is able to convince his audience that the same person who advocates unlimited immigration is the same one who would vote against prop 187. Not too likely that that person exists, but it's a useful boogeyman for what Rush tries to do.
For those who would try to be the antidote to Rush, well, the first mistake is they play on his terms. Namely, they will advocate the positions Rush does not (by definition, the "unpopular" ones), and then try to defend the L-monster, which as I said does not really exist. They wind up lookinf pretty stupid.
Those people are doomed to failure, at least if success means radio audience share (and I think it does). Rush is about as prescient as Nostradamus, who proves only to be "right" after the fact. Rush, for example, is very late weighing in with an opinion on immigration, despite acknowledging for several years that a lot of people care about it. Well, sure, or he wouldn't even have mentioned it in the first place.
So, what would be a reasonable approach for someone who would like to emulate Rush's radio success? Well, for starters, talk about popular things, like budget discipline, limited government, and NAFTA related issues. These are topics Rush avoids for some reason. Then, try to assemble a credible enemy monster comprised with the many heads of Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Schumer; and I guarantee better results than Air America and the sum total of the nuveau commie communicative collective.
The guy is good because he's mostly right. The persons who go against him typically do so by advocating the "wrong". What's keeping the talent away? Surely there's no monopoly on truth. The problem is many radio wannabes feel they must start from the corner Rush paints them into.
Brian Maloney follows the talk radio scene with his informative blog.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Fueling Innovation
Theories of supply and demand had their roots in the early 20th cent. theories of Alfred Marshall, which recognized the role of consumers in determining prices, rather than taking the classical approach of focusing exclusively on the cost for the producer as a determinant. -- Bartleby.com
No big mystery, the prices for gasoline at and above $3.00 gallon. It's probably even less of a mystery that government officials are scrambling to find the right political position. Their difficulty in finding one is as good an indicator as you need that there is no "correct" political issue. Fact of the matter is gas prices are reflective of the free market at work. Even the ridiculous state and federal taxes are no longer the dominant economic force in fuel prices.
Here is what is happening: The world's most populated country (China) is also the fastest growing market for automobiles. The global demand (which now includes that from China and other developing countries) has exceeded for the near term the ability of producers to supply. You can point to the government imposed challenges to the market, by restricting new drilling, or regulating the establishment of new refineries (did you know that there have been no new refineries built in the US since 1972?), and yes these have an effect. But it's $3 because it's worth it. And for most people it will continue to be worth it on up to $4, $5, or $6. But there's good news on the horizon. There is one thing that is going to stop rising energy costs (more about that shortly).
All the US refineries are running at near 100% capacity. That's nice for the refining companies, who show decent profits when the refineries are at full capacity. But the real supply issue is at the oil wells. Oil costs 70 dollars a barrel, precisely because thats what the markets will pay for it. It works in your neighborhood exactly the same way. You pay $3 a gallon, because it beats walking.
Fortunately, You as the all knowing and all seeing consumer will look for the most effective alternative to walking, which right now is a $3 gallon of gas. This is the good news, because at $3, the possibilities for alternative fuels expand greatly. If I have an alternative fuel or fuel technology that costs $3 to produce, I am silly to introduce it while the price of gas is $1.50. So, you just watch what happens next...at $3.00 a gallon, we may well be running our cars on corn squeezings or alfalfa extract. The technology that produce these fuels, and any other fuel technology for that matter, is much more attractive when the gas price goes up.
The oil barons know this. They probably realize that the high prices only hasten the mechanisms that put them out of business. So, they will soon have incentive to reduce their prices. The Wizer predicts a post-summer price drop of at least 50 cents; which will spawn all sorts of conspiracy theories and disinformation about how markets work....and it will stay just below what would trigger the avalance of alternative fuels.
I for one, am cheering the high prices, as potential opportunities for new sources of fuel. Competition is still king, and maybe now more than ever.
No big mystery, the prices for gasoline at and above $3.00 gallon. It's probably even less of a mystery that government officials are scrambling to find the right political position. Their difficulty in finding one is as good an indicator as you need that there is no "correct" political issue. Fact of the matter is gas prices are reflective of the free market at work. Even the ridiculous state and federal taxes are no longer the dominant economic force in fuel prices.
Here is what is happening: The world's most populated country (China) is also the fastest growing market for automobiles. The global demand (which now includes that from China and other developing countries) has exceeded for the near term the ability of producers to supply. You can point to the government imposed challenges to the market, by restricting new drilling, or regulating the establishment of new refineries (did you know that there have been no new refineries built in the US since 1972?), and yes these have an effect. But it's $3 because it's worth it. And for most people it will continue to be worth it on up to $4, $5, or $6. But there's good news on the horizon. There is one thing that is going to stop rising energy costs (more about that shortly).
All the US refineries are running at near 100% capacity. That's nice for the refining companies, who show decent profits when the refineries are at full capacity. But the real supply issue is at the oil wells. Oil costs 70 dollars a barrel, precisely because thats what the markets will pay for it. It works in your neighborhood exactly the same way. You pay $3 a gallon, because it beats walking.
Fortunately, You as the all knowing and all seeing consumer will look for the most effective alternative to walking, which right now is a $3 gallon of gas. This is the good news, because at $3, the possibilities for alternative fuels expand greatly. If I have an alternative fuel or fuel technology that costs $3 to produce, I am silly to introduce it while the price of gas is $1.50. So, you just watch what happens next...at $3.00 a gallon, we may well be running our cars on corn squeezings or alfalfa extract. The technology that produce these fuels, and any other fuel technology for that matter, is much more attractive when the gas price goes up.
The oil barons know this. They probably realize that the high prices only hasten the mechanisms that put them out of business. So, they will soon have incentive to reduce their prices. The Wizer predicts a post-summer price drop of at least 50 cents; which will spawn all sorts of conspiracy theories and disinformation about how markets work....and it will stay just below what would trigger the avalance of alternative fuels.
I for one, am cheering the high prices, as potential opportunities for new sources of fuel. Competition is still king, and maybe now more than ever.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Immigration
A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. - Woodrow Wilson
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. - Teddy Roosevelt, Speech before the Knights of Columbus
While the politions trip all over themselves to be out of the line of fire in any meaningful discussion of illegal immigrants; the problem continues to grow. Here are the Wizer's ideas for successful resolution of the issue.
1. The government must set realistic but much more aggressive targets for the number of immigrants allowed to legally migrate into the United States. The best economy in the world should be able to put to work most of the people wanting to come here. If there are indeed 20 million illegal immigrants living here, then by definition they are being supported by this economy now, so the argument that they will put anyone out of work is weak.
2. The immigration laws themselves do not need adjusting. All the illegals should take advantage of the legal opportunities created in point 1, or risk the consequences of detection and detention. Laws mean something here.
3. We must end all mandates of support for illegals. It is necessary to eliminate the motivation to come here and be a welfare cheat. All subsequent legal immigrants must have a plan to support themselves. If they fail to support themselves in this, the land of opportunity, then they were ultimately not qualified to be US immigrants in the first place. Perhaps the threat of deportation will put them on the right track.
4. Assimilation must be the focus of any immigration plan. Immigrants, leave the Mexican flags at home. If that's where your allegiance is, then that's where you belong.
5. Bi-lingual programs should be eliminated. It's hard enough to create schools to train people to work in our society, without doubling the workload of our teachers and our government employees. No person in this society who cannot speak English has a chance of contributing more to our society than they take from it.
6. Slam the companies that hire illegals. Enough Said.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. - Teddy Roosevelt, Speech before the Knights of Columbus
While the politions trip all over themselves to be out of the line of fire in any meaningful discussion of illegal immigrants; the problem continues to grow. Here are the Wizer's ideas for successful resolution of the issue.
1. The government must set realistic but much more aggressive targets for the number of immigrants allowed to legally migrate into the United States. The best economy in the world should be able to put to work most of the people wanting to come here. If there are indeed 20 million illegal immigrants living here, then by definition they are being supported by this economy now, so the argument that they will put anyone out of work is weak.
2. The immigration laws themselves do not need adjusting. All the illegals should take advantage of the legal opportunities created in point 1, or risk the consequences of detection and detention. Laws mean something here.
3. We must end all mandates of support for illegals. It is necessary to eliminate the motivation to come here and be a welfare cheat. All subsequent legal immigrants must have a plan to support themselves. If they fail to support themselves in this, the land of opportunity, then they were ultimately not qualified to be US immigrants in the first place. Perhaps the threat of deportation will put them on the right track.
4. Assimilation must be the focus of any immigration plan. Immigrants, leave the Mexican flags at home. If that's where your allegiance is, then that's where you belong.
5. Bi-lingual programs should be eliminated. It's hard enough to create schools to train people to work in our society, without doubling the workload of our teachers and our government employees. No person in this society who cannot speak English has a chance of contributing more to our society than they take from it.
6. Slam the companies that hire illegals. Enough Said.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
21st Century Marshall Plan
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison
War is just one more big government program. – Joseph Sobran
I find it hard to get comfortable with the thought media's insistence that we are at war in Iraq. From my perspective, this war ended roughly around the time that "W" did his flyboy impression on the aircraft carrier. You know, the now famous "mission accomplished" speech. As the commander-in-chief, he is uniquely qualified to say that, you know. And certainly, the mission as it was defined was, you know, accomplished. So, the war was and is over, isn't it?.
It's over of course, until it's convenient for the president or any of his friends or enemies to cite the war as some justification for some other transgression, but I quibble.
Really, what's happening now in Iraq, is the 21st century version of the Marshall plan. This is where we transfer billions of dollars of our wealth, to a country that already has a sought after, most valuable natural resource of its own. That makes this the very essence of a welfare program.
So, it's not really still a war, at least not our war. For our men, it's an infrastructure enterprise, and a police training operation. We have no clear military objective. That objective was met when Saddam's statue was pulled from it's moorings. There's another thing. People get all ballistic and emotional about the prospect of a civil war in Iraq. Listen, it's a civil war, okay? Not that big a deal. We have those all the time. Think Waco. Think NOW rallies. Think Devil's Night in Detroit.
We have another big government program, now, this Marshall plan masquerading as a military engagement. If we all just look at it that way, we will be able to see it for what it is, and take the right action.
War is just one more big government program. – Joseph Sobran
I find it hard to get comfortable with the thought media's insistence that we are at war in Iraq. From my perspective, this war ended roughly around the time that "W" did his flyboy impression on the aircraft carrier. You know, the now famous "mission accomplished" speech. As the commander-in-chief, he is uniquely qualified to say that, you know. And certainly, the mission as it was defined was, you know, accomplished. So, the war was and is over, isn't it?.
It's over of course, until it's convenient for the president or any of his friends or enemies to cite the war as some justification for some other transgression, but I quibble.
Really, what's happening now in Iraq, is the 21st century version of the Marshall plan. This is where we transfer billions of dollars of our wealth, to a country that already has a sought after, most valuable natural resource of its own. That makes this the very essence of a welfare program.
So, it's not really still a war, at least not our war. For our men, it's an infrastructure enterprise, and a police training operation. We have no clear military objective. That objective was met when Saddam's statue was pulled from it's moorings. There's another thing. People get all ballistic and emotional about the prospect of a civil war in Iraq. Listen, it's a civil war, okay? Not that big a deal. We have those all the time. Think Waco. Think NOW rallies. Think Devil's Night in Detroit.
We have another big government program, now, this Marshall plan masquerading as a military engagement. If we all just look at it that way, we will be able to see it for what it is, and take the right action.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Public sentiment
When the people have no tyrant, their own public opinion becomes one. – Lord Lytton
As I've said before, polls and surveys are unnecessary because if you know enough to write a decent survey, you already know all the answers. It is also possible to design a survey to give the result that you want.
So it is with some recent made for TV polls. Now we are told that only 37% of people think George Bush is doing a good job. This is viewed as some sort of "good" sign for the Democrats. There are a lot of folks who want to believe that, and many of them are the people designing the polls.
I have a different analysis of those results. George Bush has bad poll numbers, because he is spending like a Democrat; and growing the government in proportions unseen since the days of Lyndon Johnson.
Now, why would that be seen as a positive for Democrats, when most people know the Dems have no intention of fixing that problem? See what I mean? Ask the "wrong" poll question, and this is what you get.
I think if George would show a little backbone on spending and big government issues (he won't), he'd be back in the 60 point territory. He could still do that, but it won't save the rest of the Republicans who have squandered the golden opportunity to fix problems they said they would fix in 1994. It's probably too late for them. George isn't running for anything.
As I've said before, polls and surveys are unnecessary because if you know enough to write a decent survey, you already know all the answers. It is also possible to design a survey to give the result that you want.
So it is with some recent made for TV polls. Now we are told that only 37% of people think George Bush is doing a good job. This is viewed as some sort of "good" sign for the Democrats. There are a lot of folks who want to believe that, and many of them are the people designing the polls.
I have a different analysis of those results. George Bush has bad poll numbers, because he is spending like a Democrat; and growing the government in proportions unseen since the days of Lyndon Johnson.
Now, why would that be seen as a positive for Democrats, when most people know the Dems have no intention of fixing that problem? See what I mean? Ask the "wrong" poll question, and this is what you get.
I think if George would show a little backbone on spending and big government issues (he won't), he'd be back in the 60 point territory. He could still do that, but it won't save the rest of the Republicans who have squandered the golden opportunity to fix problems they said they would fix in 1994. It's probably too late for them. George isn't running for anything.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Seaport Ownership
No nation was ever ruined by trade. – Benjamin Franklin
When I first heard about the plan for the Dubai based operation to own and operate the seaports, I had an immediate negative reaction. Then I saw Chuck Schumer come out in opposition to it. Chuck, you see, is my rabbit test on whether the idea has merit or not. The rule is if he doesn't like it, it's probably a good idea.
Generally, the best approach is to go with the side of free trade. We whine all the time about a trade deficit with the oil countries; and then when one of them wants to reinvest in our country, and bring our dollars back home, we question the deal, obstruct it, vilify it.
Like any private concern (at least one looking to make a favorable business transaction), the interest in this deal after all the political piling on will quickly dissipate. Dubai doesn't need this hassle. They can go invest in another port in China, Australia, or India. I wouldn't blame them a bit if they just said "Thanks, but this isn't worth it".
The bigger issue is what are we going to do to allow Arab countries access to the mainstream of our economic world. If we don't do it soon, then we are pretty hypocritical about our wish to export democracy. Disallowing this type of investment is ultimately akin to keeping minority home buyers out of white neighborhoods.
I remember being a little upset about the Sears tower purchase by the Japanese, followed by the Augusta golf course. Then a friend pointed out that they are not going to move these. They are still our landmark.
Those who cite security issues must understand that freedom has to be given the chance to prevail. Otherwise, we will wind up without security or freedom.
When I first heard about the plan for the Dubai based operation to own and operate the seaports, I had an immediate negative reaction. Then I saw Chuck Schumer come out in opposition to it. Chuck, you see, is my rabbit test on whether the idea has merit or not. The rule is if he doesn't like it, it's probably a good idea.
Generally, the best approach is to go with the side of free trade. We whine all the time about a trade deficit with the oil countries; and then when one of them wants to reinvest in our country, and bring our dollars back home, we question the deal, obstruct it, vilify it.
Like any private concern (at least one looking to make a favorable business transaction), the interest in this deal after all the political piling on will quickly dissipate. Dubai doesn't need this hassle. They can go invest in another port in China, Australia, or India. I wouldn't blame them a bit if they just said "Thanks, but this isn't worth it".
The bigger issue is what are we going to do to allow Arab countries access to the mainstream of our economic world. If we don't do it soon, then we are pretty hypocritical about our wish to export democracy. Disallowing this type of investment is ultimately akin to keeping minority home buyers out of white neighborhoods.
I remember being a little upset about the Sears tower purchase by the Japanese, followed by the Augusta golf course. Then a friend pointed out that they are not going to move these. They are still our landmark.
Those who cite security issues must understand that freedom has to be given the chance to prevail. Otherwise, we will wind up without security or freedom.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Selling it
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. – P.J. O'Rourke
We've all experienced this, but I didn't give it much thought until now. We are constantly bombarded with selling propositions, and we've kind of taken them for granted as one of the necessary evils of a market based society. But, there is a toll. Let me share a recent example. This week I went to a fast food restaurant. I knew what I wanted, and drove up to the window to place my order.
order gal: Would you like to try our taco sald?
me: No, thanks; I'd like a double thickburger with cheese, pickle, mustard, and onion. Diet Coke. That's all.
order gal: Do you want a combo?
me: "No."
order gal: What do you want on the sandwich?
me: (thinking: how did she miss this the first time?) "uh, that would be cheese pickle mustard and onion."
order gal: and did you want fries?
me: (thinking: didn't I just say no to the fries?) "No, no fries."
order gal: anything else?
me: (thinking: I believe I said that's all sometime back there) "No."
order gal: So that's one double thickburger, hold the mayo, lettuce, and tomato, and a diet coke, right?
me: (thinking: is holding the lettuce mayo and tomato the same thing as putting cheese pickle mustard and onion on it? I could only hope) "I guess so."
As I drove up to the second window, I realized that this operator had forced me to say no at least 3 times (most of these directly attributable to her training), and read back an order that required intimate familiarity with the standard sandwich to resolve. Frankly my appetite was not at all the same by the time I completed this transaction. Why would an organization force me to repeatedly and specifically decline what I do not want in the process of getting what I do want? All these no's have a tendency to put the transaction in negative terms, so that by the time I'm done, I feel like I've just conducted a salary review.
All I wanted was a sandwich. And a Diet Coke.
Now the relevance (this is a political blog, after all). All I want is a limited government. So, when George Bush says he wants to put more tax dollars into math and science education, I think: it isn't the governments job to spend my money. So that's a rock on the negative side of the scale. Enough of those little rocks can ruin a saner man's day. No wonder politics riles so many folks.
If I wasn't an optimist by nature, I don't know how I'd get through the day at all.
We've all experienced this, but I didn't give it much thought until now. We are constantly bombarded with selling propositions, and we've kind of taken them for granted as one of the necessary evils of a market based society. But, there is a toll. Let me share a recent example. This week I went to a fast food restaurant. I knew what I wanted, and drove up to the window to place my order.
order gal: Would you like to try our taco sald?
me: No, thanks; I'd like a double thickburger with cheese, pickle, mustard, and onion. Diet Coke. That's all.
order gal: Do you want a combo?
me: "No."
order gal: What do you want on the sandwich?
me: (thinking: how did she miss this the first time?) "uh, that would be cheese pickle mustard and onion."
order gal: and did you want fries?
me: (thinking: didn't I just say no to the fries?) "No, no fries."
order gal: anything else?
me: (thinking: I believe I said that's all sometime back there) "No."
order gal: So that's one double thickburger, hold the mayo, lettuce, and tomato, and a diet coke, right?
me: (thinking: is holding the lettuce mayo and tomato the same thing as putting cheese pickle mustard and onion on it? I could only hope) "I guess so."
As I drove up to the second window, I realized that this operator had forced me to say no at least 3 times (most of these directly attributable to her training), and read back an order that required intimate familiarity with the standard sandwich to resolve. Frankly my appetite was not at all the same by the time I completed this transaction. Why would an organization force me to repeatedly and specifically decline what I do not want in the process of getting what I do want? All these no's have a tendency to put the transaction in negative terms, so that by the time I'm done, I feel like I've just conducted a salary review.
All I wanted was a sandwich. And a Diet Coke.
Now the relevance (this is a political blog, after all). All I want is a limited government. So, when George Bush says he wants to put more tax dollars into math and science education, I think: it isn't the governments job to spend my money. So that's a rock on the negative side of the scale. Enough of those little rocks can ruin a saner man's day. No wonder politics riles so many folks.
If I wasn't an optimist by nature, I don't know how I'd get through the day at all.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Sam's Club
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
Ted Kennedy's questions at the Alito hearing were revealing at the least. "Are you going to back the little guy?" he asked. Like John Roberts, Alito did not see a difference between the little guy or the big guy. We are all equal under the law. The law does not require that we be equal in economics, status, education, or anything else. The government does not exist as an engine for social tinkering. It's only job is to provide for the common defense, and in its most limited sense promote common good.
I don't know Sam Alito, but his rulings and his press indicate a passing deference to the constitution which is all any of us can ask. So, how can 8 committee members, and presumably 45 Democrats vote against him? The reason must be that the Constitution and the rule of law means little to these people.
Brandeis gives the benefit of the doubt to those who would encroach our rights. I no longer hold that illusion for Kennedy and his cronies who are arguably men of zeal, but not necessarily well meaning.
As for Sam, count me as a member of his club (for now).
Ted Kennedy's questions at the Alito hearing were revealing at the least. "Are you going to back the little guy?" he asked. Like John Roberts, Alito did not see a difference between the little guy or the big guy. We are all equal under the law. The law does not require that we be equal in economics, status, education, or anything else. The government does not exist as an engine for social tinkering. It's only job is to provide for the common defense, and in its most limited sense promote common good.
I don't know Sam Alito, but his rulings and his press indicate a passing deference to the constitution which is all any of us can ask. So, how can 8 committee members, and presumably 45 Democrats vote against him? The reason must be that the Constitution and the rule of law means little to these people.
Brandeis gives the benefit of the doubt to those who would encroach our rights. I no longer hold that illusion for Kennedy and his cronies who are arguably men of zeal, but not necessarily well meaning.
As for Sam, count me as a member of his club (for now).
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Wizer One-Liner #7
In order for us to believe that Bush misled us, as so many of our congressman want, we would also have to believe that they themselves are a bunch of uninvolved simpletons, seriously derelict in their own duty; and they should therefore be removed from office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)