Monday, July 14, 2008
I had not realized how much time had passed since the previous post. The critical issues, however, do not change: self-deluding enviro-ninnies do not comprehend the dangers presented by sky-rocketing oil prices.
This was brought home by video (formerly "film at eleven") on the news of another Ruskie military parade. Until recently, the former RFSSR was so poor it could could not even meet the minimum daily adult vodka requirements of its citizens for their abbreviated (40+) life expectancies. Now it is rolling in oil money, able to spend billions on a revitalized military establishment that has resumed cold war predations on the fringes of American air space. Unstable autocracies in other former SSRs (e.g., Kazakhistan, Azerbijan) are also awash in petro-dollars and petro-Euros and are attractive targets for hegemonic Russian impulses. Iran has excess millions to finance its Hezbollah and Hamas surrogates and buy nuclear technology from renegade Pakistanis. Hugo Chavez can increase his subsidization of property-appropriating Marxist-revolutionary wannabes in Central and South American, Sudan can exterminate more refugees in Darfur, Saudi Arabia can export countless Wahabist imams and Quranic hate tracts, and China -- once it finishes drilling off of the American coast line -- can turn Cuba into a Caribbean subsidiary.
The United States, thanks to energy conservation, still uses approximately the same amount of oil as in 1997, albeit a much larger portion comes from foreign sources. The inexorable growth of the U.S. population will assure that oil consumption will not decline, even if the Sod Roof crowd coerces the American public into 60 mpg mini-cars and walking to work on odd-numbered days. This is the bet that speculators in the oil futures markets are making every day: that supplies will not increase, and demand will not decrease -- and will probably go up. To build all of the infrastructure for which the D's want to appropriate funds, how many billion barrels of asphalt do you think will be required? And where does that asphalt come from? Why, the same hole in the ground that gives you jet fuel!
In the meantime, Americans will continue to subsidize Russian militarists, Middle Eastern terrorists and Latin American Marxists -- unless the price of oil returns to some reasonable level. How can that happen? According to some estimates, the United States is sitting on recoverable oil reserves equal to or exceeding the reserves of the rest of the world. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that that statement is hyperbole, and the earliest date a drop of oil from the currently off-limits reserves is delivery to a refinery is five years from today, the long term solution necessary to preserve American security is to "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less" (www.americansolutions.com) and make certain that speculators and autocractic rulers can no longer distort the market price of oil. Unless, of course, you don't care a fig about American security, or can skateboard to Grandma's house for Thanksgiving.
In the meantime, Americans will continue to subsidize Russian militarists, Middle Eastern terrorists and Latin American Marxists -- unless the price of oil returns to some reasonable level. How can that happen? According to some estimates, the United States is sitting on recoverable oil reserves equal to or exceeding the reserves of the rest of the world. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that that statement is hyperbole, and the earliest date a drop of oil from the currently off-limits reserves is delivery to a refinery is five years from today, the long term solution necessary to preserve American security is to "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less" (www.americansolutions.com) and make certain that speculators and autocractic rulers can no longer distort the market price of oil. Unless, of course, you don't care a fig about American security, or can skateboard to Grandma's house for Thanksgiving.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Saturday morning, on Fox News, one talking head described the current run-up in the price of oil as "capitalism run amok." As an ardent capitalist, I took the remark very personally and was deeply hurt.
It took about 24 hours to sink in that, as is the case more often than not, the babbler had struck close enough to hurt but missed the target.
In a true capitalist (i.e., Adam Smith) market, producers would increase supply to meet demand, until a market equilibrium was reached. So far as oil is concerned, it is not a capitalist market. Nearly 90 percent of the world's oil production is in the hands of state-owned monopolies, read, "Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico," etc. (This is why Barackish attacks on "big oil" are so heinously untruthful. Exxon, et al., control only a small fraction of the world's production, produce only a portion of the requirements of their refineries -- and are thus subject to the price run-up as they purchase to meet their needs -- and earn only a small piece of the so-called "windfall profits." But, I digress.) These state-owned monopolies have little or no incentive to increase production, as their price decisions are reflections of political agendas. Moreover, in the part of the world where oil production is not in the hands of the state, meaning, principally, the United States, oil producers are prevented from increasing production by whacko tree-hugging enviro-weenies living in Palisades, New Jersey (and similar places) who have never seen an Arctic tern (even in an aviary) but need assurance that no caribou will ever bump its antlers on a pipeline in order that they might sleep better at night.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is peddling bumper stickers that read, "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less." To which I add, "Buy It; Put It On; Vote That Way in November." (See www.americansolutions.com.)
It took about 24 hours to sink in that, as is the case more often than not, the babbler had struck close enough to hurt but missed the target.
In a true capitalist (i.e., Adam Smith) market, producers would increase supply to meet demand, until a market equilibrium was reached. So far as oil is concerned, it is not a capitalist market. Nearly 90 percent of the world's oil production is in the hands of state-owned monopolies, read, "Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico," etc. (This is why Barackish attacks on "big oil" are so heinously untruthful. Exxon, et al., control only a small fraction of the world's production, produce only a portion of the requirements of their refineries -- and are thus subject to the price run-up as they purchase to meet their needs -- and earn only a small piece of the so-called "windfall profits." But, I digress.) These state-owned monopolies have little or no incentive to increase production, as their price decisions are reflections of political agendas. Moreover, in the part of the world where oil production is not in the hands of the state, meaning, principally, the United States, oil producers are prevented from increasing production by whacko tree-hugging enviro-weenies living in Palisades, New Jersey (and similar places) who have never seen an Arctic tern (even in an aviary) but need assurance that no caribou will ever bump its antlers on a pipeline in order that they might sleep better at night.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is peddling bumper stickers that read, "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less." To which I add, "Buy It; Put It On; Vote That Way in November." (See www.americansolutions.com.)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
"Count every vote!" is what we've heard incessantly since the Democrats attempted a judicial hijacking of the Florida presidential count in 2000.
Seems pretty straight-forward on the face of it, but the 2008 primary campaign reveals heretofore unexpected nuances:
1. Barack Obama gets roughly forty percent of the sawed off Michigan delegation, although his name wasn't on the Michigan ballot. Memo to file: If you are fawned upon by the liberal glitterati, you can get a pretty good result even if nobody votes for you.
2. Delegates to the Democratic convention from Michigan and Florida, which have roughly 50 electoral votes between them, and both of which are critical to any hope of Obama winning in the general election in November, get one-half of a vote apiece, while delegates from Puerto Rico (not to mention Guam), which will have no electoral votes in November, will have a full vote at the convention.
3. Many delegates to the Democratic convention were elected by Congressional districts. Selection rules allotted delegates to Congressional districts according to the vote for the Democratic candidate in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections. Because the largest margins for Democratic candidates typically occur in predominantly black communities, black-majority Congressional districts received a disproportionate number of the delegates allotted in this manner. If you are a voter in Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston, your vote won your candidate more delegates than the vote of a Democrat unfortunate enough to live in a Republican Congressional district in West Texas. One man-one vote, anybody? Has anybody done the arithmetic to figure out if Barack would have snagged the nomination without this kind of disproportional representation?
In a campaign season rife with ironies, one of the most stark is that the candidate who says "we" are not Red states or Blue states but the United States has benefited from a selection process that stacked the deck on the basis of color.
Seems pretty straight-forward on the face of it, but the 2008 primary campaign reveals heretofore unexpected nuances:
1. Barack Obama gets roughly forty percent of the sawed off Michigan delegation, although his name wasn't on the Michigan ballot. Memo to file: If you are fawned upon by the liberal glitterati, you can get a pretty good result even if nobody votes for you.
2. Delegates to the Democratic convention from Michigan and Florida, which have roughly 50 electoral votes between them, and both of which are critical to any hope of Obama winning in the general election in November, get one-half of a vote apiece, while delegates from Puerto Rico (not to mention Guam), which will have no electoral votes in November, will have a full vote at the convention.
3. Many delegates to the Democratic convention were elected by Congressional districts. Selection rules allotted delegates to Congressional districts according to the vote for the Democratic candidate in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections. Because the largest margins for Democratic candidates typically occur in predominantly black communities, black-majority Congressional districts received a disproportionate number of the delegates allotted in this manner. If you are a voter in Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston, your vote won your candidate more delegates than the vote of a Democrat unfortunate enough to live in a Republican Congressional district in West Texas. One man-one vote, anybody? Has anybody done the arithmetic to figure out if Barack would have snagged the nomination without this kind of disproportional representation?
In a campaign season rife with ironies, one of the most stark is that the candidate who says "we" are not Red states or Blue states but the United States has benefited from a selection process that stacked the deck on the basis of color.
This blogging is hard work. Notice that two-and-a half years have elapsed since the last posting. I discovered quickly that my standards for self-expression were too demanding for quick, pithy vignettes on a regular basis. As a result, there are a handful of incomplete posts in progress that grow'd like Topsy and were never drawn to a proper conclusion. So, it is time to try again. With the presidential campaign now at full howl, there should be plenty to write about. If, only, I can just keep it short . . ..
Monday, November 14, 2005
Having said at the outset that I was likely to use this blog as a medium for discussion of political issues, let me immediately exercise editorial prerogative to discuss something that is, at most, indirectly political: movies.
The weekend before last, we went to see "Shopgirl." It has been widely promoted and greatly anticipated, presumably because the public at large is intrigued about the possiblity that an actor known mostly for buffoonery could write something "profound," although it is likely that fewer than one percent of those who will see the movie -- myself included -- have actually read Martin's novella from which the movie is drawn. Beware the "novella." At one time an art form of its own, particularly in Europe, in contemporary letters it more likely signifies "Lacked sufficient ideas to make a full book of it."
The movie is painful in any number of ways, starting with "dull." You sit there for close to two hours waiting for something to happen. Martin's voice-over narration substitutes for action. For Martin, writing the book (pardon me, "novella") was probably cathartic, allowing him to express much about himself, or his fantasies, without calling it autobiography. Making the movie seems to have been an excuse for doing a lot of scenes in bed with a nearly naked Claire Danes. There is nothing wrong with that objective; many 50+ plus men would embrace it. But even a lot of it can't make shepherd's pie out of sheep dip.
Martin's character is deviously manipulative, ego-centric if not outright narcissistic. He is so slick that you might be tempted to root for his transformation, but the chilling reality is that he has even co-opted his therapist into supporting his exploitative behavior. It is an indictment of the entire therapy industry.
Danes's character, Mirabelle, for her part, is liberated but naive, and so insecure about her sexuality that she establishes, even before Martin's alter ego, Ray Porter, arrives, that she is willing to succumb even without a plausible reason for attraction. She swallows Ray's act hook, line and sinker, even as he flippantly and extemporaneously -- or did he really intend it? -- insults her in a way that is, frankly, brutish. It is, therefore, painful to watch.
And, in the end, there is no redemption. Martin's narrator would tell us that Ray experiences moments of pain, but it is the pain of separation, not of remorse, and -- with his mansions in Seattle and the Hollywood Hills, three-bedroom apartment in New York, and private jet -- you doubt that he really misses Mirabelle very much.
Meanwhile, the pain of spending $9 for a ticket to watch this tripe is very palpable.
Next: Something positive to say.
The weekend before last, we went to see "Shopgirl." It has been widely promoted and greatly anticipated, presumably because the public at large is intrigued about the possiblity that an actor known mostly for buffoonery could write something "profound," although it is likely that fewer than one percent of those who will see the movie -- myself included -- have actually read Martin's novella from which the movie is drawn. Beware the "novella." At one time an art form of its own, particularly in Europe, in contemporary letters it more likely signifies "Lacked sufficient ideas to make a full book of it."
The movie is painful in any number of ways, starting with "dull." You sit there for close to two hours waiting for something to happen. Martin's voice-over narration substitutes for action. For Martin, writing the book (pardon me, "novella") was probably cathartic, allowing him to express much about himself, or his fantasies, without calling it autobiography. Making the movie seems to have been an excuse for doing a lot of scenes in bed with a nearly naked Claire Danes. There is nothing wrong with that objective; many 50+ plus men would embrace it. But even a lot of it can't make shepherd's pie out of sheep dip.
Martin's character is deviously manipulative, ego-centric if not outright narcissistic. He is so slick that you might be tempted to root for his transformation, but the chilling reality is that he has even co-opted his therapist into supporting his exploitative behavior. It is an indictment of the entire therapy industry.
Danes's character, Mirabelle, for her part, is liberated but naive, and so insecure about her sexuality that she establishes, even before Martin's alter ego, Ray Porter, arrives, that she is willing to succumb even without a plausible reason for attraction. She swallows Ray's act hook, line and sinker, even as he flippantly and extemporaneously -- or did he really intend it? -- insults her in a way that is, frankly, brutish. It is, therefore, painful to watch.
And, in the end, there is no redemption. Martin's narrator would tell us that Ray experiences moments of pain, but it is the pain of separation, not of remorse, and -- with his mansions in Seattle and the Hollywood Hills, three-bedroom apartment in New York, and private jet -- you doubt that he really misses Mirabelle very much.
Meanwhile, the pain of spending $9 for a ticket to watch this tripe is very palpable.
Next: Something positive to say.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
I am writing under a false flag. I have listed "communications/media" as my occupation, but it is an avocation -- not what keeps the bulldog fed. It is what I would prefer to do -- sit, think deep thoughts, put them on paper, and be paid well for it. One of these days . . ..
Thus the "communicator" part of the title. "Capitol" because we live in the armpit of the nation's capital (yes, I'm cognizant of the distinction between the two words) and I suspect that what I choose to write about will often relate to what passes for political debate in this country.
At the outset, at least, this will be a barebones blog. Though not a computer novice, my synapses were not put together with the computer in mind. Hence, I can figure out how to do things by (1) doing; (2) being shown -- but not by applying experience acquired from one program to intuiting another or, even, reading the manual or the "Help" index.
So, as I figure things out -- very slowly -- or someone shows me how -- the features of this blog will expand. For now, there is no picture -- I simply don't have one in digital form -- , or a link to a website, or just about anything else that one is supposed to be able to do on this website. If you're looking for things to divert your attention from the text, this is not the place for you, at least for the time being.
Thus the "communicator" part of the title. "Capitol" because we live in the armpit of the nation's capital (yes, I'm cognizant of the distinction between the two words) and I suspect that what I choose to write about will often relate to what passes for political debate in this country.
At the outset, at least, this will be a barebones blog. Though not a computer novice, my synapses were not put together with the computer in mind. Hence, I can figure out how to do things by (1) doing; (2) being shown -- but not by applying experience acquired from one program to intuiting another or, even, reading the manual or the "Help" index.
So, as I figure things out -- very slowly -- or someone shows me how -- the features of this blog will expand. For now, there is no picture -- I simply don't have one in digital form -- , or a link to a website, or just about anything else that one is supposed to be able to do on this website. If you're looking for things to divert your attention from the text, this is not the place for you, at least for the time being.
