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.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
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)