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.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)