Saturday, May 31, 2008

Nancy Pelosi and the Mainstream Media: WINNERS, Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate

Yes, the spinning, Fllying, Fickle Finger of Fate has stopped, pointing at two co-winners of the dreaded/coveted "Finger" (represented by a statuette of an INDEX finger pointing, being a reprise of the old "Laugh In" award) this week.

The winners this week are certainly deserving, even though you might suspect they are being chosen for their entrie body of work, rather than this week's particular outrage alone.  The "Finger" is never completely wrong when it points, alothough you might often quibble whether the particular outrage pointed at by "the Finger" is really the most outrageous in any particular week.

The winners this week were pointed out for "honor" because of related outrages.

Nancy Pelosi:  Can you get any more ARROGANT than to assert that YOU will make sure that the Democratic Party choooses a nominee in June.  That is what Pelosi did this week, confirming the idea that she wants Obama to be the nominee. However, she also confirmed the idea that she is an arrogant, San Francisco elitist who is interested in power rather than democracy. 

In case yoiu had not noticed, the Democratic Conventions is in AUGUST.  What "right" does Nacy Pelosi, or anyone else have to demand that superdelegates (and the Party as a whole) "choose" a nominee in JUNE.  Neither Obama nor Clinton will have a majority of  PLEDGED (elected) delegates going into the convention.  Superdelegates do NOT vote until the convention in August.  What they say before then is merely INTENT (or opinion), and the media survey of their sentiments is a mere POLL.   They CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS.  There is no real reason for Hillary Clinton not to stay in this race until the superdelegates actually VOTE.  Barack Obama is shooting himself in the foot almost every day, and Democrats might finally turn against him (not because of principle, but because POWER is what they primarily believe in).

How can Nacny Pelosi say that she will "force" a decision in June, when those sacred RULES say that the superdelegates do not VOTE until August, and the convention?  She can't.  The fact that Hillary Clinton herself often seems to endorse the incorrect idea that the race is OVER when a POLL of superdelegates indicates it is over does not change the ARROGANCE of Nancy Pelosi saying that SHE will make sure the Democrats choose a nominee is JUNE. 

Yes, the media gettnig this award includes FOX NEWS (which is getting more and more annoying, as it becomes ever more a part of the mainstream media PROBLEM rather than part of the SOLUTION). 

What has the entrie mainstream media, including Fox News,  been doing for a solid month?  They hafve been LYING.  Yes, I am not exaggerating this at all.  They have been telling LIES (an extension of the lies they routinely tell about opinion polls and exit polls, which are NOT "news", or facts).  You doubt me (oh, you really are a fool!!!)?

You know all of those stories about how Barack Obama was 40, or 50, delegates (superdelegates  and pledged delegates combined) from CLINCHING the nomination?  Weill, those stories hafe been PROVENT to be LIES today, as sthe Democratic Party Rules Committee voted to count HALF of Florida and Michigan votes.  It was always OBVIOUS that Florida and Michigan would be COUNTED in some way, and yet the mainsteream meia has IGNORED that in their count of the delegates needed to win  They have continually said that Obama "wins": the nomination if the MEDIA count of his dlelegates, including this poll of superdelegates, reached 2026.  That was a LIE, and the media KNEW it was a LIE (at the very least, Florida and Michingan were up in the air, and therefore the media had NO IDEA what number of delegates would be required to "win" the nomiation.  That did not stop them from stating, WITH CERTAINTY, that Obama was a certain number of delegates from clinching the nomination (sometimes mentioning Florida and Michigan, only to dismiss them--adopting the Obama line as correct).  These were OUTRIGHT LIES.  You can't be kind here.  These people are LYING to you (as distinguished, for exampler, from this blog, which has consistently told you the real situation).

It is, in fact, a Big Lie (as stated above) that Obama "wins" the nomination when his MEDIA DLEGATE COUNT, or PELOSI DELEGATE COUNT, or HOWARD DEAN DELEGATE COUNT reaches the number needed for the nomination.  This may trun out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because Hillary Clinton herself has not taken my advice and stated this obvious truth.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that she will drop out once the MEDIA declares Barack Obama the WINNER. 

That does NOT change the fact that it is a LIE to say that Barack Obama has "won" the nomination once the MEDIA COUNT of superdelegate INTENTION puts himover the number needed to win.  That number DOES NOT COUNT (as opinon polls DO NOT COUNT).  It is ONLY the superdelegate VOTE in August that COUNTS.  Even Michigan or Florida could change at the convention, although it may be likely that the Rules Committee compromise will stand.

Did the media even achknowledge that they LIED about the number of votes needed to win.  Not that I saw.  Fox merely noted that the number had CHANGED, without noting how STUPID the media use of the previous number was.

Nope.   Nancy Pelosi and the mainstream media deserve thiis award.

Virtual ceremony (without video--use imagination):

Imagine Dick Martin assertively THRUSTING "the Finger" at the camera and saying:  Nancy Pelosi and the mainstream media, this award is for YOU.  You DESERVE it.


Iraq: Propaganda Contnues (from the Manistream Media--NOT the Bush Administration)

"May closes out as one of the best months in a long time for U.S. troops in Iraq with the number of GI deaths at its lowest level in more than four years. Civilian deaths are also down significantly. Still, some security experts question whether that trend will continue."

The above is the present lead/headlihne paragraph from the AP story reporrting GOOD NEWS from Iraq (news that again indicates that McCain was RIGHT on the:  The Petraeus strategy was the only correct starategy, even while it was violently opposed by Baraack Obama and other Democrats, whether the War in Iraq is ultimately successful or not).

"Still, some security experts question whether that trend will continue."

Do AOL and the despicable Associated Press ever get concerned about PROVING eery single day that hey NEVER do a story without an AGENDA.  In other words, they NEVER simply report the facts ("journalism").  Instead, they do PROPAGANDA.

It still bobbles my mind that the sanctimonious, hypocritica people ih the media have the gall to suggest that Scott McClellan's book convicts the Bush Adminstration of propaganda, when that is al the mainstream media does.

Yolu doubt me (you FOOL you!!!!).  Consdier the above sentence.  In April, I thik, here was a blip UP in deaths in Iraq.   Did the AP find "some experts" to suggest (correctly, it turns out) that such blip was an aberrationi?  Don't be silly.  Yet, in this "news" story we get the above sentence, which is NOT NEWS. It is SPECULATIOIN with an AGENDA.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Hillary Clinton, Democracy, Superdelegates, and the Rules

Does HIlary Clinton have a RIGHT to go to the Democatic Convention and obtain a fair VOTE of the delegates on her nomination, according the Democratic Party rules?  Of course she does, unless lyou are a leftist Democrat only interested in POWER, and who does not much believe in democracy anyway (see Florida and Michigan).   Then you are approaching the matter as described in this lead AP paragraph today (note the blatant AP AGENDA in the paragraph--"faltering candidacy" indeed!!!!):

"A top Democrat says that party leaders intend to push for a quick end to the grueling presidential nomination battle, as supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton planned a rally in Washington in a last-minute effort to save her faltering candidacy."

Ronald Reagan went all of the way to a convention vote against Gerald Ford.  Democrats routinely used to go right up to the convention.

What is this sudden COMPULSION to FORCE Hillary Clinton OUT.

The "rules are the rules" (quoting Howard Dean).   The superdelegates do not VOTE until the convention.  Barack Obama will NOT have enough elected delegates to win the nominatioin before the convention.  WHY should Hillary Clinton get out NOW?  She has NOT LOST the nomination luntil the superdelegates vote at the convention.  Those are the RULES.  The superdelegates can CHANGE THEIR MINDS before they actually vote. 

Is it not the DUTY of Hillary Clinton to stay in the race to give the superdelegate "process" a chance to WORK.  Maybe Barack Obama will finally say something so bad that it is the "last straw".   He keeps trying.  Maybe it will become even more obvious that Hillary Clinton is the only WINNING candidate for Deocrats.  WHY should the superdelegates not be able to evaluate the situatiion at the TIME THEY VOTE (the convention).   Any other approach seems to violate both the spirit and the letter of those sacred "RULES

Women: Should They Have the Vote?

Some of you may doubt how good I really am, even though I tell you all of the time, and even though it is proven all of the time. 

You should not doubt any further.  If you will remember, I have labeled MYSELF a "kook" for my view that women should never have been given the vote.  In fact, I have said that it was the first major manifestations of the decline of civilization (at least in the Uninted STates) when women were given the vote).  I have also said that a "kook" (defined as "divorced from reality) idea can very rarely prove to be CORRCT.  I am so good that my ONE kook idea is in that categoy.

Yes, one of the "news" items yesterday was about a SCIENTIFIC STUDY of women and the vote.  It turns out, according to this study, that you can SCIENTIFICALLY correlate women getting the vote and the BALLOONING of the Federal Government. 

Some of you may have (plausibly) believed that the explosion of this central planning idea that the Federal Government is a solution to AlL of our problems came aobut because of teh Civil War, or because of the Great Depression, or maybe becasue of both.  This scientist, however, has concluded that the better explantion may be WOMEN VOTING.  It is well known, of course, that women were the core of support for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.  It is just beyond question that women have lined up (in majority terms) behind the DISASTROUS concept of central planning.  What other proof do you need that women are IRRATIONAL, and should not have the vote?

There you have it.  How good do you have to be when your ONE kook idea is virtually PROVEN correct?  Q.E.D.

P.S.  Hey, I may not be as bad as the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  True, I am willing to deny to deny women the right to vote.  However, Democrats, when it suits them, are perfectly willing to deny EVERYONE the "right to vote".  Ask the people of Florida and Michigan.

John McCain: Obscene Profits Or Just Obscene?

I am going to try to do my entry on "What is a conservative?" by the end of this weekend.  As a sneak preview, I make this statement:  You are NOT a conservative if the phrase "obscene profits" ever crosses your lips.  See my entries this week, where I correctly note that the idea of profits as "obscene" is a MARXIST idea (not merely leftist). 

Therefore, it is not surprising that John McCain used the prhase to refer to oil company profits.  As far as I know, he has not used the phrase with regard to Google, a comapny with profits MUCH more "obscene" than oil companies.  I did think it was a little bit of a low blow (although somewhat amusing) for Rush Limbaugh to ask whether McCain thought BEER company profits were obscene, since that is the source of his wife's money that McCin has been living on.  This comment by Limbaugh was prompted by the news yesterday that BUSCH (the large beer company) profits had gone up strongly.  Cindy McCain's fortune, according to Rush (I don't care), was built on beer profits.

Yesterday, I took on Bill O'Reilly for the same thing--spreading this fallacious idea that oil company PROFITS are a matter of concern.  It may be a matter of concern that there is not a very efficient free market now operating in oil and gasoline (see my entries this week).  PROFITS are NOT a "concern".  They are the ENGINE that drives a free market system.  If you are going to attack profits, then you do not believe in freem market theory.   If you DO believe in free market theory (as I do), then you need to be contrating on how to help the free market WORK.  See my entry on having a CAN DO attitude on oil and gasoine prices, with specific suggestions to bring down the price of gasline, instead of engaging in this stupid demagoguery on PROFITS (again, a totally MARXIST approach).

Does Alex Rodriguez get too much PROFIT out of being able to hit a baseball so well?  Or do the Clintons get too much profit out of books and speeches?  These are NOT the correct questions to ask in a free economy, as it is not the correct question to ask:  Is Google too profitable?  

And some wonder why I believe that conservatives are now exiled in the Wilderness waiting for a LEADER to appear to bring them back to the Promised Land!!

P.S.  It remains true that I would not vote for John McCain for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas,where I lived most of the first 12 years of my life.  In fact, I would not appoint him SEWER INSPECTOR of Mt. Ida (I guess Mt. Ida had a sewer, although it was a town of less than 1000 people).

Ted Kennedy: Associated Press Love Affair Continues

I could never make this stuff up, as AOL and the Associated Press continue to prove daily that they are a cooperative "news" outlet with an agenda.  Today's example is a ridiculous, non-news story that conservative attacks on Ted Kennedy are FADING, as Ted Kennedy becomes less of a conservative target (helped along by the cancer diagnosis).  This LONG story is what AOL and the despicable AP consider "news". 

I talk about a "love affair" with Kennedy in the headline above, but it is actually interesting that the despicable AP has used Kennedy less and less as an "approved" spokesman for the left--much more interesting tahn the non-story the AP actually wrote.  Nancy Pelosi, Pat Leahy, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Henry Waxman, Hillary Clinton, and so on:  THOSE are the far let heroes taht the AP goes to for quotes these days.  Ted Kennedy receives reverence as a leftist pioneer, but he is no longer the spokesman for the left.  You will note that Barack Obama, the probable Democratic nominee for President, has been documented to be the Senator whose votes are FARTHEST LEFT of them all..   He is the darling of the far left that is steadily taking over the Democratic Party.  Maybe I should have devised a headline about how the "old wife", Kennedy, is being discarded in favor of the new "love affairs", even while nostalgia remains on the left for what once was.

 The Asscoiated Press, and AOL, are just beyond despicable--"journalims" with an agenda so obvious that even most leftist college newspapers would ONCE have been embarrassed to slant their "news" coverage this much.  Now, leftist "journalists" are proud to pursue an agenda at all levels, and all pretense of "objective" new is  gone.

Translaton of this story:   The Democratic Party has moved so far left that, within that party, Ted Kennedy is a MODERATE.  For the Associated Press, it is "news" that the "rigth" no longer regards Ted Kennedy as a prime target.  IF you regard this as "news" at all, the REAL "news" here is how far LEFT the Democratic Party has gone--with the FAR LEFT furnning the party. You can actually get that from the story, but the despicable AP, and AOL, would NEVER run a story that said that.

The other message of this story, of course, is that conservatives are better people than leftists--not targeting the old and sick.  You might consider leftist reaction to Cheney's periodic severe heart problems.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Farm Bill: We Don't Need No Sinkin' Free Market

If you ever needed evidence about the disaster of central planning, and the difficulty of changing course once you go down that disastrous road, consider the recent, bloated Farm Bill (which aso included pork of all kinds, and leftist favorties like food stamp expansion).

You don't like the rich?  Well, a good portion of the subsidies in the Farm Bill go to the RICH, large farmers. 

You like free market theory?  Well, only about 1/3 of Congress does.  The rest appear to be MARXISTS.  The bill passed by veto proof majorities, and the President's actual vetor was overridden, although the Democratic House left 34 pages out of the bill that went to the Preisdent.  That 34 pages did not make it into law with the rest, although I assume they got there, or will get there, eventually. 

You don't like excess Federal spending and pork?  Again, 2/3's of Congress, inclulding a whole lot of Republicans and almost all Democrats, disagree with you. 

One of the amazing features of this bill is that it GUARANTEES farmers 90% of the PRESENT grain prices for FIVE YEARS.  A farm lobbying organization GLOATED over that provision.  Why?  Because present grain prices are at a RECORD HIGH.  This means that high food prices are virtually GUARANTEED BY CONGRESS for the next five years, or else the government will be shelling out a whole lot of taxpayer dollars to make up the difference to farmers--to make sure that farmers receive near-RECORD prices.   When called on this, spokesmen indicated that it sounds worse than it is because it is UNLIKELY THAT GRAIN PRICES WILL GO DOWN ANYWAY, and therefore unlikely that the government will have to pay out a whole lot of money.

Uh-huh.  Then WHY did we (that is, farmers) need government gurantee?   Why insist on provisions tthat supposedly will never come into play, but which are SUPID if they did come into play (the STuPID part being the guarantee of RECORD prices).  That is the kind of (il)logic you get into when you go down the central planning road (no to mention the road of deceit and unaccountability, as "free" Federal money seems to flow in an endless stream). 

The Un.N. announced today that it expects worldwide food prices to stay high for the next several lyears (indicating, if accurate, that maybe we won't have to shell out those big Federal bucks to gurantee the farmers those record prices). 

Notice what theat means.  It means that this is a perfect opportunity to return to the free market in agriculture.   When farmers can make money in the free market, even with the cost of energy, WHY can't we end the cycle of government control and subsidy?  If you don't understand why, you have been truly brainwashed by the Big Government, central planning types.  We can't return to teh free market because everyone concerned is now invested in the idea of depending on the Federal Government.  In the world of central planning, you NEVER go back.  The answer to the inevitable, eventual FAILURES is MORE CENTRAL PLANNNING--MORE government control and dependency.

I have said before that President Bush is a Big Government Guy.  Even he could not stand this bill-hence the rare veto.  Almost NO "expert" defends this hopelessly bloated bill (none that I have heard, anyway).   Nevertheless, almost all of Congress voted for it.

So much for Republicans making an "issue" out of Federal spending or Big Government.  This bill alone indicates that no more than 40% of Republicans are worth voting for (a generous percentage that is surely too high). 

Nope.  We conservatives (not just me, even if you consider me not worthy of being called a conservative) HAVE been exiled to the Wilderness.  All we can do is wait for a LEADER to bring us back to the Promised Land of Ronald Reagan.  That leader will NOT be John McCain--win or lose.

Opera: A Dull Art Form--An Inconvenient Truth

Opera is the DULLEST art from ever created--bar none.  Okay, the MUSIC can be impressive, but who can really stand to watch an opera performed?  I think opera has about as many viewers worldwide as CNN and MSNBC (except, maybe, in the effete European countries).

WHY am I suddenly picking on opera?  After all, if yo LIKE opera, and find it inspriing high culture, why should I hurt your feelings?  You have a right to like what you like.  A listener actually called the Rush Limbaugh program to complain that Limbaugh appeared to be dissing "classical music" (oh, if opera were only just music!). 

That explains why I am bringiing up OPERA (a first for me).  It is the same reason that Rush Limbaugh was talking abut it.

Some Italian (I think) opera house (or composer or something) is going to make an OPERA out of Al Gore's really stupid, and false "An Inconvenient Truth."

Now your first reaction may be that the Apocalypse is clearlly upon us, and the Antichrist already walking the world, if someone wants to make an OPERA out of Gore's movie.  That is not quite my reaction.

My reaction is that they DESERVE EACH OTHER.  Why should the dullest man who ever lived, and a movie that would be the dullest movie ever made if not for the hyped falsehoods in it, not be combined with the dullest art form ever invented by man?

I think this is entriely appropriate.  Gore's movie was certainly not science.   Why should it not live on as bad art?


).S.  The major contribution of opera to civilization is probably the statement allegedly made by the immortal Yogi (Bera)--or somebody similar:  "It ain't over until the fat lady sings"--referring to the GAME.   Operas, of course, traditionally end with the hefty leading lady singing the climactic song.

Scott McClellan

Scott McClellan's book illustrates the problem that both President Bush and the Republicans have.  I consider the book unimportant (no new factual information, but merely putting a leftist "spin" on old infomration for purposes of making a buck in an election year).   Yes, the leftist media ORGASM over an unimportant book IS sort of amusing.

But I don't feel like defending President Bush anymore (as I don't much fell like defending Republicans in general).  See yesterday's entry, for example, on the utter filure of President Bush to take ANY action--even the most basic action, like suspending purchases for teh strategic oil reserve until Congress forced him to as of July 1--to address gasoline prices that are potentially undermining the economy (not to mention Republican chances in the fall elections). 

There is no "loyalty" to President Bush and the Republicans anymore because they non't deserve any loyalty.  Scott McClellan is well aware, or was informed, that defending the Bush Administration was not going to make him any money.  And President Bush was so busy catering to Democrats and the "new tone" all of these years, thet he (rightly) gets no real credit for being a "man of principle".  Is there anything about President Bush that really inspires much loyalty?  I don't see it.  As a minor league McCain, President Bush was certainly willing to throw conservatives under the bus when it suited his purposes.  I have previously expressed my real despair over the "tunnel vision" that President Bush has shown over his entire Presidency.

Even on Iraq, where it is MCCAIN who has turned out to be right--giving credit where credit is due, President Bush gave the SAME speech for YEARS, and then got rid of Rumsfeld at exactly the wrong time--the DAY after Bush had ensured a disastrous Republican defeat in 2006.

Nope.  I just don't much feel like defending these people.  It is absurd to suggest that Bush "propaganda" got us into Iraq.  For that matter, I have SHOWN in this blog that the minatream media puts out more outrageous PROPAGANDA every day, including pro-terrorist propaganda, than the Bush Administration ever thought of putting out.  In fact, they are using McClellan's book as an excuse for further outrageous propaganda. 

So what.  No one is really interested in defending President Bush or the Republicans anymore.  We (conservatives) do it more as a matter of principle, and reflexive desire to expose leftist idiocy, rather than out of any sense of "loyalty" to President Bush or the Republicans. 

Here is my rather weak "dfefense" posted under the AOL story asking "Who do you believe?"--referring, I think, to whether you believe the Bush Administration people out there attacking Scott McClellan (more that they EVER, for example, directly attacked Joe Wilson) or whether you believe Scott McClellan.  Talk about an UNINTERESTING question!  Anyway, here is my response to that 'question":

As to AOL's stupid question (I really can't believe anyone is still dumb enough to reply to these unscientific, meaningless AOL "polls"--heck, you would be doing the country a service to refuse to cooperate with SCIENTIFIC polls), I don't exactly believe either of them because it is ALL opinion.

McClellan has produced NO new FACTUAL information.  He has just produced his OPINIONS, based on information we already knew, which I consider of no value.  Those opinions are such big "news" ONLY because of two things:

1.  The leftist media wants to get Obama elected and just "get" President Bush.
2.  The "traitor" factor, where we are always fascinated by people who "turn on" their former bosses, friends, or associates, even though that hardly is a validation of the character of such turncoats.   Did Benedict Arnold really validate the British positon by betraying the American rebels?

Gasoline: Further Lessons in Free Market Theory--The O'Reily Factor

It is getting to the point where I can no longer wach Fox News, because it distorts factual reality as much as any other "news" outlet out there.  A case in point was O'Reilly's rant last night about the "evil" oil companies "gouging" the "folks" by charging an "unfair" price for gasoline. Now I don't belive that executives of big oil companies believe in a free market anyh more than O'Reilly, or leftists, do, but instead believe in big corporate EMPIRES.  That is the true place that oil companty executives are vulnerable to criticism--that, and the truly cringe worthy falsehoods and distortions of fact the oil companies tend to put out when they are challenged.   However, to concentrate on "unafir" "profits" is the WRONG criticism--the very point of my recent series of entries on the free market, gasoline, and oil.  In a free market, there is NO SUCH THING as a "fair" price.  The "fair" price is, BY DEFINITION, the price at which supply and demand are in balance.   If you IMPOSE a different price, by central planning, you merely make a bad situation much worse by distorting the proper allocation of resources.

Assume that the price of gasoline at which supply and demand are in balance is the destructive (to the economy) price of $10.00 per gallon.   Is there a way for prices to go that high?  Sure there is, IF we try the O'Reilly approach of demanding that a "fair" price be charged for gasoline--less than the price at which supply and demand are in balance.  Assume that we FORCE Big Oil to charge $5.00 a gallon for gasoline, when supply is not sufficient to meet demand until the price reaches $10.00 per gallon.  What happens?

BAD things happen.  REALLY BAD THINGS.  You are SUBSIDIZING the use of OIL as a fuel at a low price ("low" in terms of supply and demand).  That means that people will use TOO MUCH oil (too much gasoline), or try to.  This will result in a SHORTAGE in the supply of oil (a shortage automatically occurs when demand exceeds supply for an extended period of time).  That shortage will increase the more supply and demand are out of balance, such that when you finaly are forced to let the price go to the free market price (or RATION in a complete government takeover of industry operations), you are in deep, dark trouble.  The price then may be $15.00 a gallon.  

Worse, if you have kept fuel prices artificially low, you are DISTORTING the proper allocation of resources by incuding people to continue to rely on oil at a SUBSIDIZED price.  Alternative energy may now be the MOST ECONOMIC way to go.  But people don't realize that because you are imposing an ARTIFICIAL price for oil.  Further, you are discouraging the search for more SUPPLY by limiting the profit to be made by procucing oil at expensive prices.  For example, the lake of "shallow oil" that lies under some western states can oly be tapped with expensive "horizontal drilling" at a cost of about $50.00 per barrel of oil.  IF we keep the price of oil artificially low, such sources of supply may not be tapped.  This vicious circle then exacerbates the shortage, and makes eventual still higher prices inevitable.

There are ONLY two free market ways of reducing the price of gasoline.  One is to increase supply.  That way is UNDERMINED by restrictions ofn drilling imposed by Congress, states, and leftist environmentalishts (by lawsuits).  It is further UNDERMINED by artificial restrictions on profits or prices, which reduce the incentive to produce more oil resources (or more gasoline).

I have said that the "free market" in oil and gasoline is not working well (partly because of big energy company mergers creating Big Oil, partly because of OPEC and the many "central planning", authoritarian countries which are major oil producers, and partly because of the U.S. Congress and leftist environmentalists restricting supply).  Does that not indicate that O'Relly is right:  that we need to establish a "fair" price for gasoline, since there is no such thing as a true "market" pirce?

Nope.  That is the illusion here, and the delustion.  If you arbitrarily set a price, it will be the WRONG price.  There is no way to know what price to "set".  If you believe that a "fair" price can be set, you are simply sying that you believe in MARXISM (or at least a form of socialism).  This has been proven the wrong way to go by history, and there is not even a theoretical reason for believing that it would work.  The amount of "profit" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "right" price for gasoline.  The "right" price is the price at which supply and demand are in balance, in a competitive market.  A non-competitive market may produce a distorted price, but it will still be LESS distorted than an arbitrary, government (or O'Relly) set price. 

See the previous entry, and entries before that, as to the CORRECT appraoch.  The correct approach is to try to IMPROVE the operation of the free market in oil and gasoline.  You cand do that by relaxing unreasonable government restrictions on drilling.  You can hlep do that by STOPPIN G further mergers of oil producers and refiners (and even rolling back some of the mergers that have already occurred).  Since the Federal Government is such a big part of the economy (unfortunately) the Federal Government can DIRCTLY affect demand, and put pressure on for the free market to start to operate (as even the present large players begin to panic a little about needing to sell their product before prices fall). 

You may not like some, or even most, of the individual suggestions in my previous entry.  However, the approach is the ONLY correct approach.  The "solution" to an imperfectly working oil market is to apply pressure to try to make it work better--NOT to impose "fair" prices or other government MANDATES.

The "solution" is definitely NOT the "O'Reilly solution" (which also happens to be the leftist Democrat "solution" in Congress) of bashing the profits of Big Oil. Tat does NO good, and may do a great deal of harm.   

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Gasoline and Oil Prices: Can Do Approach

As most of you know, I have been upset for a long time abut the BLASE attitude of President Bush toward many things (almost everything other than the War on Terror), and the lack of a PROACTIVE attitude by Republicans generally (and evern many conservatives).  In this continuation of my series on the economics of free markets, especially in the area of oil and fuel, I tell you what President Bush CAN do, and should have done, to address the speculative "bubble" in oil prices, without interfering with what is left of the free market in oil and fuel (in fact, measures that would HELP restore more of a free market). 

The housing crisis is almost history.  The "bubble" has already burst.   The correction from "irrational exuberance" has already happened.  Things are not yet good.  But they really aren't getting any worse (although the statistics always lag the actual beginnings of the recovery, and the media is still able to spread doom and gloom with "worst" headlines--you know, "worst" drop in housing prices in 16 years, and that sort of thing, which is one of the things to SPUR recovery as people see reduced housing prices). 

However, there is still a major risk to the economy:  the price of FUEL (including diesel) and OIL.  My brother is co-owner of a trucking company.  He sees directly the effect of guel prices on both the economy and transportation costs.  Biofuels,  pushed by disastrous Federal "central planning", have caused a rise in the cost of food.  But rising fuel costs also create a rise in the cost of fuel and everything else.  Transportation costs are part of CONSUMER costs.  Then there are energy costs that go into the cost os so many things.  If you have read the previous entries in this series, you should realize that Federal action to interfere directly with the market in fuel and oil is NOT the "answer".  It will merely create further problems.  However, free market principles can be USED to solve the problem (especially since so much of the problem is a psychological expectation taht the price of oil and fuel is going to keep going up).

My brother has been almost beside himself at how the Federal Government (including the President and Congress) have acted like there is no urgency to this--to the point of INCREASING the problem.  It is not only the biofuel mandates, or the truck engine requiremements which have already added $8,000.00 to the price of every truck.  That is just the tip of the iceberg in costs being added to what you buy by "global warming" regulations/laws, with more proposed in Congress.  <eamwhile, the government is DIRECTLY adding to the problem by purhasing oil for our strategic oil reserve AT ANY PRICE (HOARDING oil at any price, as a great example for other countries).  Then there are the leftists in Congress, and elsewhere, making sure that the price of oil stays up by preventing DRILLING for more oil in Anwar, offshore, and generally in 2/3's of the areas in and around this country where oil might be produced (including the most promising areas).  This hurts both directly and psychologically.  My brother wants to know:  Where is the URGENCY to do soemthing about this problem that I cans SEE hurthing both my business and this country?  There is all of this TALK about oil companies (which my brother does not like either because of the big corporate empires they have created), but NOTHING is actually DONE that will cause oil prices to cme down.  Instead, the opposite is done:  The meassage is sent to the oil market that we are NOT sesrious about producing more oil or otherwise reducing oil prices.  My brother can be forgiven for believeing that the Federal Governmentl--not only leftists but President Bush, John McCain and the Republlicans--is conspiring against him.

One of those unanswerable questions my brother asks is:  WHY does the Federal Government (and everyone imposing burdens on the public through government) demand that everyone BUT government, and the people in government, SACRIFICE?  Not only that, but they demand sacrifice in ways that merely exacerbate our problmes.

That gets me directly to what the Federal Government (President Bush) can DO.   The first thing we can DO is to REDUCE gasoline and fuel use by the Federal Government by 20% (excluding combat).  WHY should President Bush not demand that EVERY agency in the Federal Government REDUCE actual gasoline and fuel usage by 20% (reduce actual usage and not "projected" usage).   You may say:  Surely they are doing that, if only a matter of staying within budget?  Don't be naive.  Further, it is not even enough to do it.  You have to do it PUBLICLY in a grandstand gesture:  a gesture that tells people like my brother that the Federal Government "shares hispain", and is willing to sacrifice itself to help the rest of us. 

I would emphasize that I am NOT talking about a "commisson", or a study.  I am talking about an Executive Order to IMPLEMENT a plan to cut fuel consts 20% within 30 days.   Further, the Preisident should include the WHITE HOUSE (all officials and staff) in this order that fuel usage be reduced 20%.  It would further include the Secret Service--especially those around the White House--with the pledge to COOPERATE in reducing travel requiring extensive Secret Service fuel use.  The President should CHALLENGE Congress to join in this effort to cut fuel usage at least 20% in all Congressional offices.  The President should suggest that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (RNC and DNC) follow suit. 

THEN the President goes on television and challenges every state and local government to follow the example of the Federal Government.  The speech should also challenge every large corporation, and even small businesses to follow the same EXAMPLE.  There would be NO Federal MANDATE.  There would be no attempted regulation of the free market.  The President would merely show URGENCY, and ask for everyone to act in their own interest to DECREASE the DEMAND for oil--at least so long as the price stays up.  The President should not that this is the best immediate action to put pressure on OPEC, oil speculators and the rest, and the President should emphasize his DETERMINATION to do exactly that, with the HELP of the entire nation in following the example he intends to have the Federal Government set.

The President can go further.  He can ordoer Federal Government employees to cut TRAVEL (not using government purchased fuel) by 20%, and again set an example by saying he is going to cut his OWN travel 20% until fuel prices go down.  He can suggest that coporations cut travel the same 20%. 

President Bush can order that the Federal Government REDUCE all energy use by 20% (or 10% or SOMETHING) within 90 days.  Again, he can order that EVERY agency outside of a combat zone IMPLEMENT a plan to be effective by then.

AFTER all of that, President Bush can suggest that every household cut fuel use 20%.  He can say that he realizes most people are doing so out of NECESSITY, which is why he wants government to JOIN them, but he thinks that they should specifically sit down and look at ways to cut both fuel use AND energy use.  The President should REJECT government mandates, such as the old 55 mph speed limit, but should note that there are many ways to cut costs.  Specifically COMBINE trips (going grocery shopping coming home from work or another trip, for example.   President Bush can mentioin that driving no more than 55, VOLUNTARILY, will save gas.  He can again say that the Federal Government is etting the example--that he has issued an Executive Order that all non-emergency operators of Federal vehicles go no more than 55.  If compact florescent bulbs are a good idea to same energy costs for a private individual, then then are a good idea for goveernment.  Therefore, another Executive Order is to use compact florescent bubls, or the most energy efficient lighting where you have overhead lighting.  Where it is possible to have sufficient light by REMOVING one large florescent tube in an overhead fixture that will be done.  Again, the point is that whatever President Bush is recommending that private citizens do, and he is asking that the energy department put out sepcific recommendations within 30 days, the Federal Government WILL do.  If it is recommended that computers be totally turned off, to the point of being unplogged overnight, along with all other electronic equipment, then Federal employees wil be ordered to do that, in the absent of compelling and specific reasons to the contrary.

This would not be a matter of Jimmy Carter showing up in a sweater (in winter) and suggesting that people turn down the thermostat.  It would be a DETERMINED effort to have the Federal Government set the example with MULTIPLE actions--the goal being to reduce national oil demand by 20% by the end of this summer.  State governments, local governments, corporations, employers and private indiduals would be asked to follow the Federal EXAMPLE (rather than imposing a Federal mandate that the Federal Government does not even adopt for itself).

It should not stop there.  President Bush should DEMAND that we produce more oil.  He should NAME NAMES in Congress (including Democratic leaders. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, AND JOHN MCCAIN, along with issuing a list of ALL lawmakers who have blocked Anwar drilling).  President Bush should point out that reducing demand is NOT enough, despite what environmentalists say, because demand is now WORLDWIDE.   The ONLY way to put real pressure on OPEC, and provide real reductions in fuel prices, is to INCREASE SUPPLY outside of OPEC.  That is also a national security necessity.  Therefore, as everyone else is sacrificing, President Bush calls on envrionmentalists to sacrifice a VERY LITTLE by accepting envrionmentally sensitive DRILLING in Anwar, and other restsrcited areas (especially offshore).  This does NOT mean the envrionment will be destroyed (as it was not destroyed by the Alaskan Oil Pipeline).  It means that environmentalists will have to accept a little more risk to the envrionment than they want to accept, in the interest of all of the rest of us, including the POOR.  President Bush should emphasize that too many environmentalists seem to want to impse Federal reductions of FREEDOM, and excessive burdens on our economy, instead of accepting just a little more risk to the environment.  President Bush should correctly say that such a tunnel vision fanaticism should not be accepted by policy makers. 

Then there is nuclear power.  The President should say the same sorts of things on nuclear power, NAMING NAMES IN CONGRESS.   The President has been much too reluctant to face these confrontations head on, with vigorous challenges to opponents--as have Republicans in general.  That needs to end.

The President needs to reverse his OWN tunnel visoon on the strategic oil reserve, and say that ALL nations of the world should pledge NOT to hoard/stockpile oil at a price above $100.00 a barrel. 

The President should tell OPEC directly that he is declaring WAR on oil prices, and that if they continue to fail to do better in meeting worldwide oil demand, they will have to face the consequences. 

Then the President shoulc challenge Big Oil and Big Energy.  He should say that they are big enough to produce more oil, and finance energy projects, and that he will OPPOSE any further mergers in the energy business.  He should tell the companies that they need to PROVE that they can find and produce more oil--especially if oil drilling restrictions are reduced.  He should tell the oil industry that they should not NEED tax incentives to do this, at today's prices.  The President should tell oil comapanies that if they don't produce more oil and gas, and make an effort to show that it can be done, then the President will want  to look into whether we need to UNDO some of the mergers to get more decision makers into the field with a CAN DO attitude.  The President should ASK the Petroleum Institute, and oil companies, to provide SPECIFIC things the Federal Government cand do to enable them to produce more oil and gas, AND to refine more product (things NOT including tax incentives).  

The President should APOLOGIZE for not being proactive enough in the past, and should suggest that we can all act TOGETHER to change the way the oil market is presently operating--BOTH on the demand and supply sides, as well as the psychology.  If everyone realizes that we are SERIOUS about changing the dynaimics of the present oil market, that might accomplish much in and of itself.

Again, the point here is not to say the every one of the above suggestions is correct.  But READ them, and then ask yourself whether it is true that we can't do anything about oil and fule prices other than INTERFERE directly in the market in ways that both economic theory and history indcate don't work.

We clearly CAN do something about the oil and fuel market, if we have the WILL and the URGENCY to do things.  It is an absolute OUTRAGE that we, the public, are ACCEPTING political posturing (like this Marxist demagoguerty on the profits of oil companies) instead of REAL action.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Veterans, Leftists, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Never doubt me.  You should be learning not to by now.  Remember my entry earlier today with the P.S. about how leftists are trying to USE our troops and veterans by professing "concern" over their mental health, as a back door way of opposing the War in Iraq (:now that violence in Iraq is at a FOUR YEAR LOW, and the troop surge appears to be successful).  Well, does this story TONIGHT from the despicable AP, featured on AOL, not show how right I was (lead paragraph quoted, and my response):

"The number of troops with new cases of post-traumatic stress disorder jumped by roughly 50 percent in 2007 amid the military buildup in Iraq and increased violence there and in Afghanistan."

NUTS (the famous reply to the Nazis at Bastogne).  The Associated Press is hopeless.

DIAGNOSIS of PTSD increased 50%.  It is intherently implausible (I would say impossible) that the actual CONDITION increased 50%.   There has been an EMPHASIS on PTSD by various groups, AND the AP.  What do you expect? The DIAGNOSIS is going to explode.  This is for two reasons:  More treatment and evaluation available (a goog thing), and more inclination to make the diagnosis on lesser symptoms (not necessarily a good thing).


Barack Obama: Gaffe Central

See my previous entry today about Barack Obama's Memorial Day speech in Las Cruces, New Mexico (35-40 miles from where I type this, alghough I was not there).

But that is not the only problem Obama has had recently (on top of all of his other gaffes).

Part of the news today was how Obama gave another one of those FALSE stories about his family history.  This one was about how one of his recent ancestors had helped liberate Jewish deat camps in Germany (Auschwitz was, I think, the place Obama named).  It turns out that the story was NOT TURE (although the ancestor may have helped liberate a concetration camp that was NOT a Jewsih extermination camp).  Obama had clearly told the original story sto hlelp him witht he Jewish vote, where he is having problmes (as he SHOULD have problems, considering his apparent wilingness to talk to Iran without preconditons, and other such items).

Remeber Hilary Clinton and her embellished Bosnia "sniper" story.  Is Obama's attempt to use FALSE family stories any different.  Of course, it does not receive as much attention, because the mainstream media is FOR Obama.

Now consider whether Hillary Clinton shoudl "drop out" of the race before the convention (we are talking August here, and not June).  WHY should Hillary Clinton not point out that Obama keeps making MISTAKES, and that by August she expects it to be obvious that she is the superior nominee.  She can also, of course, say that recent voting SHOWS that she is the superior nominee.  She expects to CONVINCE people of that by August--even superdelegates who do not currently support her.  Clinton can plausibly ask:  WHY should I not stay in the race until the superdelegates actually VOTE in the convention.  That way, I am giving them an opporunity to do what the RULES say tey are supposed to do:   VOTE for the nominee they consider the party's best nominee AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION.

Fox News continues to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution (to the mainstream media problem).  I have again almost quit watching Fox News.  It is pitfiful when they are no better than CNN or the despicable AP.  Fox News says, every time I watch for as much as 30 seconds, that Barack Obama is now only 48 delegates, or whatever, from this race being OVER.

That is a LIE.  It is not only a LIE, but it is a 1984 style BIG LIE.  The nomination race CNNAOT be "over" until the superdelegates actually VOTE (neither Obama nor Clinton can win the nomination with the number of pledged delegates they have won in primaries and caucuses).  What Fox means when it says that the race will be "over" is that the media will declare it "over", even though the superdelegates don't actually vote until August.  That is the same as declaring a primary "over" based on a pre-election POLL.  It is FALSE.  The race is not "over" because Obama has enough PROJECTED votes, based on a POLL of superdelegates (even if they have publicly declared themselves).  It continues to remain absolutely true that superdelegates can VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AT THE CONVENTION, and dont' have to vote the way they say they presently intend.  If I were Hillary Clinton, I would say that I have a DUTY to stay in the race until the superdelegates acutually VOTE (officially--any "vote" prior to the convention does not count).  Hillary Clinton could say: 

"I truly believe that I am the best candidate for the Democratic Party  I hope to convince people of that--even superdelegates who have said they do not intend to vote for me.  Further, I think I am doing a SERVICE to the Democratic Party to contine to give people a CHOICE up to the final vote in the convention.  Barack Obama may look very different to people then than he does now.   What is wrong with giving superdelegates a CHOICE at the very time they are supposed to make that CHOIC:  the time of the convention.  At that time, superdelegates hould look at all factors known AT THAT TIME.  If I get out now, theywill not have that option, even if Barack Obama is obviously not the better choice in light of all factors at that time."

I am leaving the above to show you that even when I am writing based on a TV cable report, of which I saw only 30 seconds, I am STILL more accurate than the desicable Associated Press.  Here is the AP lead tonight, featured on AOL (about Barack Obama's great uncle, with the Obama campaign "explanation" coming out only after housrs had passed and a flap was already brewing--Barack Obama having talked about his great uncle helping liberate AUSCHWITZ instead of a "Buchenwald sub-camp").

" The Barack Obama campaign said Tuesday the candidate mistakenly referred to the wrong Nazi death camp when relating the story of a great uncle who helped liberate the camps in World War II."

While a despicable place, and a CONCENTRATION camp, Buchenwald was NOT a true DEATH CAMP for the extirmination of Jews.  Maybe the AP and Barack Obama deserve each other--they seem to have a similar disregard for the difference (political in Obama's case?).  Here is the Wikipedia description:

"Camp prisoners worked primarily as forced labour in local armament factories. Inmates were Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, Roma people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sinti, religious prisoners, criminals, and prisoners of war (POWs)"

There is, of course, the question of why Barack Obama deserves that much credit for the efforts of his great uncle (Barack Obama, of course, has not served in the U.S. military).

The commentary under the quoted AP: lead is mine, as posted under the story on AOL.

Question:  How "proud" could Barack Obama have been of his great uncle, and how familiar with Nazis death camps, to mix up Auschwitz and Buchenwald (both pretty famous places--especially Auschwitz). 

I stand by what I have been saying, despite the predictable attemopt by the despicable AP to downplay this gaffe:  Barack Obama is committing gaffes that no other candidate could get away with, and he is doing so REGULARLARLY.   The man is not qualified to be President of the United States (objectively, even apart from the gaffes--the gaffe only emphasizing the point).  Problem: The (probable) opponent is MCCAIN. 

Bob Barr has been named the official Libertarian Party candidate.  I am voting for him.  Yes, I DO think he would make a better President than either Obama or McCain.  However, I would still not vote for him merely on that ground, if either McCain or Obama were merely ACCEPTABLE.  That is because I know that Barr is not going to win.  Therefore, a vote for Barr is basically a protest vote.  Nevertheless, I refuse to vote for either Obama or Mccain.  Neither is acceptable to me, even on a "lesser evil" basis.  You can see this blog archives for the reasons, although I will surely repeat them.

P.S.  A few of you may have noticed that the second part of the above was added to the wrong entry last night (under the entry on the USE of veterans by Obama, among other leftists--all related stuff if you understand what is going on as Obama raised the "post-traumatic stress disorder" matter at the same time he was politically trying to get credit for his family helping end the Holocaust--political stuff all of the way, with no care as to the accuracy of what is being saidl), as I was in a hurry and going to bed.  It is now in the right place.


OPEC and the Oil Market

This entry continues my series of entries on free market theory, with this entry being a direct continuation of the entry earlier today on the oil market.

Two oeverall truths:

1.  Leftists (by whcih I mean mean the far left people who now control the Democratic Party) do NOT want OPEC, or anybody else, to produce more oil.

2.  Leftists regard "energy independence" as merely a phrase to use politically to advance a socilaist/Marxist/leftist (pick your own word or words) CENTRAL PLANNING agenda of having the government decide all of not only the "choices" that we would otherwise have, but all of our industrial civilization (as I hae said, one of the consequences of free markets is FREEDOM to make your own choices).  For leftists, independence from OPEC is only incidental. OPEC countries are mainlly CENTRAL PLANNING countires, and leftists clearly want that kind of power in the government.  The concept of OPEC is hardly as repugnant to leftists as, say, the religious right.

3.  The CARTEL effects of OPEC have been limited in the oil price spike over the past year, as OPEC nations (especially other than Saudi Arabia) do not have the CAPACITY to produce substantial amounts of additional oil.  In other words, the MARKET in oil (combined with a somewhat speculative commodities market) has prodcuced a price beyond that aimed at by OPEC.   With OPEC pretty close to capacity, at least without substantial additional development of their actual capacity to prouce oil, there is a large question as to where the MARKE T in oil is taking us, and simply saying that OPEC distorts the "free market" in oil bets a lot of questions.  In fact, the lack of capacity in OPEC probably has more to do with OPEC countries being generally central planning, authoritarian countries which are inefficient in developing their resources.  If those "evil" private oil companies could operate freely in the OPEC countries, the capacity to actually produce oil would probably be much greater.

Even assuming that OPEC can successfully restrict oil ouput, without bowing to market forces, does that mean that free market analysis is irrelevant to the oil market?  Of course not.  OPEC is best viewed, from the perspective of free market theories in two ways.  The first way to to regard it as equivalent to a NATURAL restriction on oil resources.  That is, if you assume that OPEC is going to provide only so much oil (like a finite oil field), then the free market has to operate with regard to the REST of the oil available in the world (presumably not subject to limitation, except in terms of the amount of oil discoverable, where we do not yet appear to have reached the limt).  The second way is to take action calculated to dESTROY the power of the cartel.  Applying free market theory to both of these theoretical approaches leads to the SAME conclusion on what should be done:  ENCOURAGE the production of more oil (exactly what leftist Democrats do NOT want to do). Nor do you have to encourage this with subsidies.  The PRICE should be enough. 

If we assume that OPEC output restrictions are not allowing the free market to operate fully, why not try to counter that with price controls and taxes to prevent oil companies from "benefitting" from the arificial scarcity?   Pay attention to my entry describing the three main accomplishments of a free maket (which apply, if with lesser efficiency, even to a partial free market).  One of the primary benefits of a free market is proper ALLOCATION of resources.  An artificial scarcity of oil is still a scarcity.  You have to ALLOCATE the scarce resource among the people using it by some method.  PRICE is the method that works the best, and provides the most freedom, in a free market economy. 

There is a certain dEMAND for oil.  If you assume that OPEC is limiting the supply, then the PRICE has to RISE to put supply and demand in balance.  What if you PREVENT the price from rising, by price controls, or profit controls, or whatever. (Note that leftists do NOT seem to want to stop the price from rising so much as they want to PUNISH oil companies, which helps consumers not at all.)  Then you merely DISTORT the allocation of resources, causing a MISALLOCATION of resources.  If you keep the price from rising to reduce the demand, you are SUBSIDIZING the use of oil.  That means the DEMAND for oil stays TOO HIGH (in view of the actual, available suppply).  This results in SHORTAGES of oil (as happened with the Nixon price controls), and ridiculous things (like rationing) that occur when you distort the free market.  Worse, if the "correct" price of oil (the price that will bring actual supply (taking OPEC into accunt) and demand into balance, is HIGHER than the subsidized price, then people will continue to try to use oil when they should be using alternative energy. 

What is the leftist "answer" to this dilemma of government interference in the free market causing distortions in the allocation of resources?  You know the answer to that as well as I do.  The leftist answer is MORE government control--a spiral that eventually leads to socialism, or an economy totally destroyed by excessive central planning by fallible human beings acting on insufficient informatioin.  Leftists don't worry about oil price, and shortages, because their "answer" is to MANDATE people not to use oil (presumably determining those people "worthy" enough to continue to use oil and oil based fuels by some method of government controlled rationing).   Do central planners really have any way of knowing WHAT "alternative energy" emthods to MANDATE?  Of course not.  Unintended consequences will be the norm, and not the exception.  Consider the ethanol debacle, where ehtanol MANDATES have NOT helped reduce the price of oil materially, but have helped RAISE the price of food materially (again, causing biofuels to be labeled a cRIME AGAINST HUMANIY by some in the U.N.).

The central planning "answer" is going to be a disaster.  What is funny is that history shows that it ALWAYS is a disaster, in the end, and theory suggests it will be a disaster.  Leftists like it anyway, because they are coming at this from a MARXIST perspective.  They don't care if central planning is a total disaster from all economic points of view.  They look at it, as I said previously, as a matter of MORALITY, where the people should not be "exploited" by capitalists. 

Setting aside that point of view (correctly) as irrational, what is the free market answer to an oil supply restriction?  Tjhat is clear (if not to Congress, or leftists or the media--that unholy Trinity who are One):  MORE SUPPLY.  That means you try to reduce restrictions on supply as much as you can, even if it means taking some risks.  Anwar anyone?  Offshore drilling anyone?  Nuclear power anyone (a supply of ENERGY, if not oil)?  SUPPLY is the only free market solution to excessive demand (excessive in terms of demand exceeding supply at a certain price).  Otherwise, you MUST allow the price to rise, if lyou cannot add to supply, in order to bring in alternatives to oil at their "real" price--the price that does not distort the market and represent a central planning choice of the "best" alternatives.  Now you can also reduce DEMAND (which is a reason to allow the price to RISE, and therefore both result in as much production as possible AND result in demand SHIFTING to products which do not use so much oil).  There ARE some other ways to reduce demand, without th distortions of central planning MANDATES reducing individual freedom, and I will address those in a later entry.  I assure you that those suggestions will be in accord with free market theory (a rational response to the raised market price), but in a proactive way.

What is the best way to DESTROY a cartel (if you can't do it with anti-trust laws within a single country).  Easy.  You do the exact opposite of what leftists want to do.  You ENCOURAGE competing supply  If a cartel can be made to FEAR competiion (supply from elsewhere), the cartel is on its way to destruction.  Members of the cartel will be ANXIOUS to sell their oil while prices are still high.  This will BURST the oil price "BULLBEL", and cause a downward spiral in prices.  But it requires encouraging SUPPLY, which is exacly what Congress is FAILING to do.  If we started showing a determination to increase supply, the psychological effects alone might cause a collapse in the price of oil (as traders became reluctant to be "long" oil).  Instead, because of Democrats and leftists, we are doing the exact opposite by conspiciously RESTRICTING supply. 

That is another qauestion Congress should have asked oil company executives:  WHAT can we do to put pressure on OPEC.  Mabybe the oil company executives would even have had some suggestions beyond drilling in Anwar and offshore.  But that is the reason that question was NOT asked (at least in a prominent way).  It invites the obvious answer:  Make OPEC FEAR a coming increase in SUPPLY by removing restrictions on drilling (providing the drilling is done in an environmentally safe way). 

Thus, free market analysis results in the SME concusion, regardless of which question you look at.  The best way to offset output restrictions of OPEC, and use the free market to reduce prices, is to INCREASE SUPPLY (and reduce restrictions on supply).  Further, the best way to destroy OPEC is to INCREASAE SUPPLY, and let OPEC know that you are embarking on a policy of INCREASING SUPPLY (of oil and natural gas). 

But what about the distortions in the free market in oil and fuel resulting from MERGERS?  What if there is not enough competition in oil and fuel markets outside of OPEC? 

Well, the answer should now be obvious to you, if your "central planning" blinkers have been removed (I hope by the logic of these entries).  The "answer" is NOT to try to counter imperfections in the free market with central planning, which merely causes MORE distortions and misery.  The answer is to try to INCREASE the free market in oil and fuel.  That means to STOP any further mergers.  You could look at BREAKING up oil companies (such as by separating refining and producing operations, while PREVENTING mergers of eiether; or you might try to recreate Exxon, Mobil. Texaco, Chevron, Conoco, Phillips, etc. as SEPARATE companies).  That kind of action is NOT government "intefrence" with free market theory, but a government attempt to ENCOURAGE free markets.  Merely STOPPING any furter mergers would be a start, along with removign unreaonable restrictions on drilling. 

The point is not that there is one right "solution".  The point is that there is ONE right approach:  That is the approach of trying to put free market theory in operation.  There is ONE wrong approach:  That is the approach of trying to "solve" the whole theing by central planning and government distortion of free markets. 


(entry to be completed)

Barack Obama, Messiah Raising the Dead: Does Barack Obama Know the Meaning of Memorial D

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, AND I SEE MANY OF THEM IN THE ATUDIENCE HERE TODAY..."  (emphasis added to covict the guilty).

The above is from Barack Obama's speech on Memorial Day.  As the first words of the above speech indicate, Memorial Day honors the DEAD.  We know that, for many leftists, Obama is the Messiah returned.  This fits. He obviously raised some "fallen heroes" from the dead to appear at this speech.

Did Obama AD LIB that part about "many of whom I see are here today"?  Remember, this was a PREPARED SPEECH.  Memorial Day is NOT Veteran's Day.  Does Barack Obama know that?  We know that Obama DELIVERS speeches well.  But are they his words?  When he departs from a prepared script, he just sounds stupid.   If this was in the prepared speech, of course, it goes beyond stupid.  I find that hard to believe.  I wuld prefer to believe that Obama departed from the prepared speech because hte thought it sounded good, and really had no firm, personal concept of what Memorial Day is. 

I realize perfectly weel that this is not a "big deal".  But what if MCCAIN had said something this stupid?  What if President Bush had said something this stupid?  Does it not distort the idea of Memorial Day to treat it as just a day honoring our veterans, even if--like me--those veterans never saw a day  of combat, and/or were not even wounded?  A day honoring our FALLEN soldiers should not be turned into a day manufacturing concern about veterans in general, for POLITICAL REASONS.  If you don't realize that Democrats are trying to USE veterans these days for political reasons, you have not been paying attention. 

You doubt me (oh, you really are a fool!!!).  Consider the REST of what Obama said on Memorial Day.  He talked about post-traumatic stress (one of the leftist "talking points" about how the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have given our soldiers "mental problems"--the way the despicable AP{ pout it, in an effort to both show "concern" for our veterans and oppose what our soldiers are doing at the same time).  Worse, Obama then went on to try to get Clinton's FEMINISTS by talking about how women women soldiers are especially at risk mentally because they suffer so much sexual harrassment (again a leftist "talking point" because it both shows concern for "women" AND attacks the military that leftists do NOT like, even as they cry crocodile tears for our soldiers and veterans). 

This is on MEMORIAL DAY.  Obama turned MEMORIAL DAY into a day for pushing leftist talking points that have nothing to do with our fallen dead. 

This gaffe is much more serious than Hillary Clinton's inadvertent insensitivity on the word "assassination.  Hillary Clinton was in an "off the cuff" interview searching for the right words.  Obama was engaged in a major, prepared speech, and still messed it up (substantively) more than anything Clinton has said.

You might remember that Obama is the same person who said there are 57 states, and said that 1,000 people died in a tornado in a Kansas town last year (in saying we needed the National Guard troops that are in Iraq); about 13 people actually died in that tornado).

WHY are Democrats concentrating so much on veterans?  It is obviously a SCAM--an attempt to USE veterans for political purposes.  The idea is to DEFLECT criticism (correct criticism) that leftists are anti-military and weak on natioinal security.  And the WAY Democrats are doing it actually pushes a leftist agenda.  For example, does it not push a leftist agenda to push for a central planning, Federal Government solution to all of our problems, where the Federal Government takes care of EVERYBODY?   Of course it des.  Leftists want the Federal Government to pay for EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY--including highter education and health care.  It makes obvious sense, even if it is mainly a political scam, for leftists to push for extra SCHOLARSHIPS for "veterans" (like me again) who served as few as three years, AND to push all kinds of health care benefits for veterans (again, ofthen without regard to how long they served or whether they really need it--perhaps taking money away from SERVING soldiers).  It is another one of the "crusades" of leftists that "mental health" needs to be covered for EVERYONE.  I really think this is related to the fact that leftists KNOW that they are mentally ill (why else do you think so many Hollywood people are in therapy all of their lives, or consulting various "gurus" for answers as to how to be happy).

Now I am in favor of giving our soldiers more, especially WHILE they are serving, if they are killed or injured in the military, or if they make the military a career.  But what leftists are trying to do here is demand so much for EVERY "veteran" (because central planning and spending Federal money is what they DO anyway) even war heroes like John McCain oppose throwing Federal money at EVERY veteran.  Then leftists point and say:  "see, we care MORE than those hypocrites who claim to support our soldiers."

Hogwash.  If lyou are willing to dishonor the real purpose of Memorial Day, for political purposes, you don't understand soldiers at all.


P.S.  Vetrans are like everyone else.  Some of these "veteran" groups that the media likes to quote are "front" groups with the kind of name leftists love (think "People's Republic of China")--which is not to say they do not have real veterans in them.  There are leftist veterans.  More fundamentally, what is the PURPOSE of veterans' groups?  It is to LOBBY for the interest of veterans.  that means that these groups ALWAYS want more for veterans. They serve a valuable function (although I would hope they would be sselective in pushing those areas where there is a real need for veterans who deserve it).  There SHOULD be people lobbying for veterans.  And I am sure (human nature) that there are veterans, like me, who did not "sacrifice" much for this country (and I went to law school on the regular G. I. bill) who WANT the Federal Government to take care of them their entrie lives.  That is WHY Democrats are trying to USE veterans in this way, as they are trying to USE everyone who feels that it would be nice to have the Federal Government take care of you.   Still, this leftist idea that you have to throw Federal money at every problem, or to every "deserving" person or group, is destructive in the end (see my ongoing series on oil and oil companies).  In the end, this idea that the Federal Government can solve all of our problems will make all of our problems worse. 

Oil and Gasoline Prices: Free Market Theory

Does free market theory operate in the present oil and gas market?  Sute it does; just not very efficiently.

For example, let us look at the way OPEC, Leftists (especially leftist environmentalists), the media and the U.S. Congress are COOPERATING to increase oil and fuel prices, and to keep the free market from operating. 

What happens if oil companies produce more oil?  They make more PROFIT (in the short run, although in the long run they might be better off with OPEC type output control and price fixing--the very things that CONGRESS, leftists, and the media are virtually forcing them to do).  As set forth in the previous entry, the private (freedom, remember?) search for PROFIT is the engine that makes a free amarket system go.  Resources are allocated where they need to go (to satisfy demand) because people (and companies, which are composed of people) see where there is more PROFIT to be made. 

Thus, it is perverse, and stupid, to worry about profit being made.  The whole idea of a free market is for people to see where more profit can be made, and to allocate resources there.  Sruprise!!!!  Guess where Congress (especially Democrats, but Repblicans were hardly conspicious in makkng the points I am making) and the media concentrated in recent hearings?  Right.  They concentrated on PROFITS, which I have labeled as perverse--because it is perverse 

The message Congress is sending to big oil companies is:  Don't make more profit.  We won't let you keep it.  That leads to the further messaste:  Don't produce more oil and gasolline, because that will give you more profit (over the relatively short run, but that is the time frame in which people operate, unless you distort the natural process), and we are not going to let lyou keep it.  Thus, when Hillary Clinton suggests that oil compnay profits are HERS (the government's, but to people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and other leftists, it is all the same thing), to dispose of, she is sending the meassage that oil companies should NOT produce more oil and fuel.  That is exactly the wrong message to send.  That is also why increased taxes on oil companies is exactly the wrong message, although (as with FARMERS), there is no reason to give oil companies special tax breaks when they should not need them.  The present market itself should be strong enough to provide incentive to produce more energy where it makes ECONOMIC SENSE,  (The only question here is what is a "special" tax break; for example there is the argument that "depletion" deductions are the equivalent of equipment depeciation, although that is an argument that seemignly applies to ALL natural resource commodities--gold, silver, potash, aluminum, etc.).

What is the REAL area Congress should be "grilling" oil compnay executives about?  There is really no question about this.  Congress SHOULD be "grilling" oil compnay executives (and "experts") about one thing:  HOW do we PRODUCE more oil and gasoline?  Have you seen any publicity about THAT? Of course not.  That is because leftist Democrats in Congress, and leftists elsewhere (such as in the media) are not interested in the real problem, from a free market point of view.  They are interested in the MARXIST (or whatever word you want to use for the central planning approach of Maxine Waters, et. al.) approach.  That means BASHING oil compnay profits and the free market system.

Of course, it is embarrassing for Congress to ask oil companies why they are not producing more oil and fuel.  That is because Congress and leftists (lawsuits, attempted state regulaton, etc.) won't let more oil be produced or more refinieries be built.  At the every least, ,Congress is keeping some 2/3's of the potential oil drilling areas, in and around the United States, off limits to drilling   WHY is there not more OUTRAGE at this?  After all, it is obvious that this is a major factor in restricting the efficiency of our free market system.  Remember, again, taht the whole idea is that more resources will be allocated to PRODUCE more product if the profit potential is there.  Well, the profti potential is there (although Congress and leftists are doing their best to remove it), but Congress is RESTRICTING the ability of people to allcate resources to take advatage of the profit seemingly available.  This has EXACTLY the same effect as OPEC.  It is a RESTRICTION ON OUTUPUT by the Congress of the United States.  Congress might as well be a part of OPEC.  They are helping OPEC operate.   In fact, there is some question about whether OPEC countries CAN produce much more oil at any price--meaningthat Congress may now be one of the main restrictors of output in the world today.  Leftists and Congress have tried to deflect their obvious responsibility for that by deflecting total blame to the evil oi companies, and OPEC--again the MARXIST technique.

Have I not said, however, that the free market system is not working well in the oil and fuel markets?  Indeed I have, but one of the reasons it has not been working well is CONGRESS (plus leftists and government in general).  Beyond that, even a free market system working BADLY works better than a central planning system.  That is because a central plainning system has no way of working well--no way to "work" in any manner but hopelessly badly (over any kind of long term). That is because there is no way for a few (relatively) fallible human beings to correctly allocate resources and control output and prices--the things a free market system does automatically.  That is why it compounds pererversity to suggest that the solution of failures/ineffeiciencies in a free market syste is central planning.  Central planning is the WORST, most hopeless "solution".  The only correct approach is to try to remove obstacles to the free market system working better (obstacles like the unreasonable restrictions on drilling), and to make sure that central planning is at a MINIMUM necessary to avoid predatory and destructive free market practices ("strip mining", environmentally unsafe drilling--as most drilling presently is NOT "unsafe", release of poisons--NOT CO2, etc.).   Perversely, of course, leftists (including those leftist Democrats now controlling Congress), want the MAXIMUM interference with the free market system, even though there is no doubt of the adverse consequences of that.  Even theoretically, IT DOES NOT WORK.  For leftists, if is a moral thing,  They don't care if central planning cannnot possibly work.  Theirs is the MARXIT idea that "profit" is immoral, and exploiting people.  That is what leads to the leftist approach that it is better for EVERYONE to be worse off rather than accept this "immorality".


Analysis to be CONTINUED in subsequent entries, as I have decided this is a convenient point to end this entry (sort of like a chapter ending)



Monday, May 26, 2008

Free Market Theory

No, I am not going to try to give you a full treatise on "free market theory".  However, I believe that it is important to give some basics, at a time when leftists (not to mention REPUBLICANS--revisit recenf Farm Bill) are conducting an all out assault on free market theory (see previious entry as to assault on simple arithmetic), without even acknowledging they are doing it (unless you are talking about Maxine Waters).

Free market theory, and history, suggest that a free market BEST accomplishes these 3 things (in additon to the overall goal of best producing economic prosperity):

1.  Free markets BEST allocate resources, because they do NOT rely on a limited numbe of "central planners" with an agenda.  Free markets allocate resources by the "invisible hand" of supply and demand--as private citizens VOTE with their MONEY as to what is most valuable to them.  If a product is not cost effective, or there is not sufficient public demand (alternative energy anyone?) for it, the product FAILS.   Resources are allocated to a different product for which there is a demand (unless Congress puts the product--oil in this case--off limits, and therefore limits the supply aritificially probably more than OPEC is now limiting the supply).

2.  Free markets "regulate"--set the "correct"--PRICE of a product or service by supply and demand.  This, of course, requires a COMPETITIVE marketplace (see previousl etnry mention of mergers).  Again, for central planners to attempt to set prices has proven to be an absolulte DISASTER throughout history.  In theory, it is a disaster to try to set prices by central planning, and in practice it has proven a disaster.

3.  free markets provide FREEDOM.  Some (leftists) may blink at this, but it is absolutely true.  It is one of the delusions of leftists that it is not true.  What is the alternative to free markets?  Right.  It is central planning (in our case, usually by the Federal Government, which has shown itself so very copentent to "plan" everything--NOT). Free markets operate by private individuals, and coompanies, making "free" decisions on what they want to do, without being TOLD what they HAVE to do by a centralized "state".

Let us go back to "profits" again.  See the previous entry, which was more a primer on simple numbers than a real examination of "profits".

First, it is obvious that for the Federal Government to try to "regulate" either prices or profits is a REJECTION of free market theory (a rejection toward which leftist Democrats seem determined to head, as they lurch further and further toward the historically repudiated idea of "central planning"--with Republicans seeming to be heading in the same direction, except slower).

Second, free market theory is not much concerned with "profits" at all.  Certainly, "profit" is the MOTIVATION (freedom to seek it their own way)  for people participating in free markets.  But COST is a major factor in profit, and individual companies might have different costs.  Free market theory has more to do with PRICE, and supply and demand. 

Profit, however, dOES matter in free market theory . It is the engine that runs the whole concept.

Time to go to oil and gasoline.   I know.  It is deabatable how much of a "free market" there is in those commodities.  I will postpone that issue for a later entry, and assume that we can apply free market theory to oil and gasoline. 

HOW do free markets "regulate" price?  It is with PROFITS.  If DEMAND is high, then the PROFITS are potentially HUGE (as they are in oil right now, except we have put most of the country OFF LIMITS for drilling).  People seeking PROFIT increase the SUPPLY, and that lowers the price.  Without the potential PROFIT (for example, the government regulates the PRICE or the profit), free market theory falls apart.  Notice how this WORKS perfectly well on "alternative energy".  Once it is CHEAP enough, and oil is EXPENSIVE enough, "alternative energy" will take off).

Assume gasoline went to $10.00 a gallon (to take a ridiculously high, arbitrary example).  The DEMAND would drop like a lead weight falling off of a sheer cliff, and SUPPLY should rise (again, with two caveats here:  suppply disruptions because we are NOT producing more oil in the U.S., leaving us at the mercy of some unstable countries; and there is that question of exactly how much of a free market there is in oil and gasoline, except that the answer to problems in that area is to INCREASE the "free market" in oil and fuel and NOT to resort to the discredited idea of central planning).

At SOME price, the "bubble" in fuel prices bursts--even with OPEC and the lack of a truly free market in that specific area.  WHY?  Well, first demand simply dries up.  Second, supply MAY increase (certtainly it will "come out of the woodwork" from people actally wanting to cash in on "bubble" prices).  Finally, at SOME price non-oil energy products that "compete" with oil become economic.

Oil and gasoline:   I actually think that there is something the PRESIDENT can do about oil and fuel prices--mabybe a few "somethings--which would not interfere with the "free market" at all.  I will post that entry some time this week. 

P.S.  You dwill note a little less of a directly political/media bashing tone in today's entries (okay, I left in a LITTLE bashing--"colc turkey" is bad for you).  This actually does not repreent a permament change in the blog, since I still expect to comment on current "news" stories.  However, I am going to Boston to visit my two daughers (Kyla is presently living in Kenda's apartement there while she studies for the New York bar exam).  Question:  Does even BOSTON deserve THIS.  My answer is "YES", but there was a slight hesitation (since I KNOW how dangerous my daughers are together).   That means that there will be few, if any, blog entries between June 3 and June 11 (not applause, please).  I thought I would use this coming week as an opportunity, if I have time, to get a little more into economic and political THEORY--with concrete examples from current "news", but more theoretically oreiented.   I even hope to do an entry this week, or this coming weekend (I don't leave until Tuesday) on "What is a conservative".  Yes, I DO think there are some basic principles which define a "conservative", to the extent you cannot be one if you do not believe in them (as I don't think either President Bush or Senator McCain is one).  Nope.  I am NOT talking about detail issues like Iraq, abortion homosexual rights, or the death penalty, although I think they figure in to a degree under the more general principles).   You will have to WAIT for the entry to see if I can pull it off. 

Oil: Profits and Profit Margins

This entry has little directly to do with oil, but it arises because of the demagoguery/stupidity of Democrats in Congress.  No one else can make oil executives look relatively good by comparison.  This is an entry expalining the difference between the total number of profit dollars a single company makes and profit margins.  

Let's make this simple ("this is a football").  Say one person has $100.00 to invest and anouther person has $1000.00 to invest.  Assume that each person makes a 10% PROFIT on his investment. 

That means that the person who had $1000.00 makes $100.00 and the person who had $100.00 makes $10.00 (Nope, this has NOTHING to do with "inceasing the "gap" between the "rich" and the "poor", which remains exactly the same in percentage terms--see a future entry this week).  These two people (the one with $1000.00 and the one with $100.00) had exactly the SAME "profitablility" on his investment.  The real profitability of a company is based on its percentage return on equity and NOT on the basoulute number of profit dollars.   This is NOT a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of fact as certain as 2 plus 2 equals 4. That may explain why Democrats in Congress can't understand it (or expect that other leftists out in the public have no understanding of it, or are willing to go along with a Big Lie that they think helps them).

Let me put it in a different way.   If you have ten people who make $10.00 on $100.00, what have they made.  Right.  They have made $100.00--exactly the SAME as the one person who had $1000.00 and made the same 10%.

Time to addrss Big Oil specifically.  Take the above (objectively true, and not arguable) principle and apply it to Big Oil. 

If you have ten oil companies making 10 billion dollars each, is that any different from 100 oil companies making 1 billion dollars each?   Nope.  It is not any different--except in the one respect I will get to at the end).   In economic terms, the INDUSTRY would be just as "profitable", and even make the same amount of overall profits,  It is just that the larger a coporation is, the more absolute dollars it makes on the SAME percentage profit as a smaller company. As I say, this is 2 plus 2 equals 4, and not arguable (which did not stop Democrats in Congress, and leftists, from trying to demagogue by suggesting that 2 plus 2 equals 5).

There IS one way that it makes a difference whether 10 companies make 10 billion dollars each or a billion companies make $10.00 each (these examples asume these companies are of the same size, and therefore have the same percentage "profitability"). 

While MERGERS are part of capitalism, they are not really a part of free market theory.  In fact, BIG mergers violate free market theory.  That is because free market theory assumes economic units small enough (in coparison with the whole) so that one, or a small number, of market units cannot really influence the "market" directly.  In that case, you have eitehr a monopoly (not an issue here), or an oligopoly, which IS an issue here.

In other words, it is BETTER for free market theory to have 100 oil companies instead of 10.  This, again, has nothig to do with profits. It has to do with absolute SIZE, created by mergers (in th eoil industry:  think Exxon/Mobil, which used to be Exxon AND Mobil AND Gulf, AND so on).

Now Democrats have not done anything about these mergers (Bill Clinton certainly did not while he was President for 10 years).   That is because Democrats are not interested in free markets.  They want Big Government, and for that purpose truly huge corporations are a GODSEND.  They (leftist Democrats) get to demagogue against the huge corporations and argue that only huge government can counter the huge corporations.

Now I don't favor punishing success by suggesting that corporatons can't be above a certain size. But, as I have correctly said before, these MERGED oil companies have NOT gotten big (begger--they were already good sized) by producing, refining and marketing oil and fule.  They have gotten HUGE by MERGER--mergers which we should never have allowed.     Again, this has absolutely nothing to do wtih "profits", as the "profits" for a greater number of oil companies might well have been exactly the same (total, adding them all up). However, we would have more DECISION MAKERS in the oil industry deciding where and when to drill for oil, to the extent Congress lets them, and we MIGHT also have more competition. 

P.S.  Don't you just love Maxine Waters.   In these "bash the evil oi compnay" hearings, Ms. Waters went totally off the reservaton bly exposing that leftists do NOT believe in the free market system, but believe--or profess to believe--in a basically socialistic system.  An oil company executive was making the correct poiht that most of the promising areas for drilling for oil in and around the U.S.A. have been put off limits by CONGRESS.  The oil compnay exectutive was suggesting that IF gasoline goes over $5.00 a gallon, people should BLAME CONGRESS.  Ms. Waters retorted that such might be HIS suggestion, bu tthat the reaction to such a development by LIBERALS like her would be to "TAKE OVER" the oil industry (that his,  have the Federal Government take over that industry, which is not that different from the approach of suggesting that oil company profits belong to the government to use as the GOVERNMENT sees fit. 

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Mexico: A Failed Country

I live in El Paso.  Today's HEADLINE story (along seemingly pretty much ignored nationally, as usual)  in the El Paso Times was about 11 people found murdered FRIDAY in Juarez, Mexico (the sister Mexican city to El Paso right across the Rio Grande, within about 5 miles of where I am typing this).

In case that did not register, we are talking about Friday ALONE.  This makes Jurez one of the few cities in the world now more dangerous than Bagdad, although the mainstream media is more likely to report Iraqi deaths in Iraq than they are too report the more imporatant fact that the Mexican border (on the Mexican side) is OUT OF CONTROL--even with the army sent in to try to restore order. 

These are not ordinary murders.  The El Paso Times identified them as "organized crme" mucrders.  Translation:  DRUG CARTEL MURDERS in a drug war for control of the Mexican side of the Mexican border (where the police are often part of one drug cartel or another).

The El Paso Times quoted "law enforcement authorities" (U.S., I think) as suggesting tha people from El Paso use "caution" in travelling to Mexico.  I have lived in this general area since 1960, and this is the WORST I have ever seen it--by far. 

Segue to Barack Obama (okay, McCain is only slightly better, and Clinton no better).  Obama talked this week of the XENOPHOBIA of the people opposing illegal immigration--that is, the people who correctly believe that we CANNOT solve all of MEXICO'S problems, especially since Mexico is a FAILED country.   This illustrates again that Obama was saing exactly what he meant when he talked about "small town America" and the xenophobia resulting from "frustration" (in other words, from not having the "intelligence" to be a leftist elitist like Obama). 

It is ironic that one of the few cities that might compete with Juarez as to blood running in the streets is Obama's CHICAGO, with its out of control gangs.

"Xenophobia" has nothing to do with it.  We MUST secure the Mexican border, which further REQUIRES that we take action WITHIN THE UNTIED STATES to discourage illegal immigrants from coming here and/or staying.  There is no way to totally "seal" the border, although we can do better.  But if you combine border security with measures discouraging illegal immigrants (such as deportation upon ANY arrest, and STOPPING illegal employment of illegal immigrants), we CAN keep Mexcio from imosing its problems on us.

Note:  DEMOCRATS have tried to SNEAK "amnesty" provisions through in other bills.  The latest attempt was an attempt to put an AMNESTY provision for farm workers into either the farm bill or the supplemental war funding bill.  This is only the latest attempt by DEMOCRATS to enact "piecemeal" amnesty into law, to the point that it is impossible to deport anyone--while they wait for election victories in Congress to enable them to pass the "comprehensive immigration bill" that turly will give us an "open border" with Mexico. 

Anti-American AP and AOL: WINNERS, Flying Fickle Finter of Fate

The spinning Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate stopped and pointed early this week (Sunday), and ever wavered.  The Anti-Amiercan Associated Press, and AOL, are serious candidates for the coveted/dreaded "Finger" (reprise of the onl "Laugh In" award represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger) for conspicious stupidity/evil during the week.  This week there was never any doubt they would WIN. 

In fact, they won TWICE.  If they had not won for the reason set for th below (in a repeat of last Sunday's blog entry), they would have won for the later story during the week about the U.S. military detaining 500 "juveniles" suspected of terrorism in Iraq.  The anti-American character of the despicable AP, and AOL, is just not in doubt. See the entry early in the week on the disgraceful story about the detention of "juvenile" terrorists (poor babies!!!!l).

However, the winning entry was last Sunday's headline and story bout an alleged Korean War atrocity by "U.S. Korean allly".  The despicable AP went into the realmo of hyper-evil and hyper-anti-Americanism with that story, and it almost caused me to violate my pledge to be the last person left on AOL to turn out the lights after everyone else has left.  I usually try to say something NEW in the entry making the award.  This time, however, I am mainly simply REPEATING last Sunday's entry.  It is not that last Sunday's entry was so well written.  It was written too much in the white heat of anger for that (although I stand by every word in the cool light of day).  It would just be too mcuh work to try to eplain it all again in different words. 

First, the award ceremony (a virual ceremony relying on your IMAGINATION, without pictures or video:

Imagine Dick Martin THRUSTING "the Finger" at the camera, in his unique, in your face style, and saying:  AOL and Associated Press, this award is for YOU; you DESERVE it for anti-American activities above and beyond the call of duty."

Here is the repeat entry descriging the winning "story":

North Korea,  Harry Truman, and the Anti-American AP--Promoted by the anti-American AOL



AP IMPACT: Thousands killed by US's Korean ally

Associated Press
Posted: 2008-05-18 13:38:59
DAEJEON, South Korea (AP) - "Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950."
Look at the above headline, and lead paragraph.  I really can't make up these Associated Press stories.  The despicable Associated Press, and AOL, PROVE every single day my thesis that they are sources of anti-American PROPAGANDA.
Look at that headline.   "IMPACT" yet, for a story from 1950.  Harry Truman, a DEMOCRAT, was President then.  Democrats controlled Congress.  Further, North Korea had INVADED South Korea.  Is this really important now?  I am not saying that it should be ignored.  But LOOK at that headline!!!!  It does not even identify the killers.  It does not refer to the atrocities and agression of North Korea.  It identifies the killers as "allies" of the United States--clearly the ONLY reason for the hysterical way the Associated Press is presenting this story. 
Don't you feel like a FOOL for ever doubting me about the Associated Press, and AOL, being  fundamentally anti-American, and a source of anti-American propaganda?  You should feel like a fool.  For any reasonable person this "story" should be the last straw.  Remember, I have promised to be the last one left to turn out the lights, afer everyone else has left AOL.  "IMPACT" indeed!!!!
Consider this headline:  U.S. "ally" murdered 20 million people!!!  Something like that is absolutely true.   Before, during, and after World War II Joseph Stalin, and the Soviet Union, MURDERED some 20 million people (give or take a few MILLION).  The Soviet Union, under Stalin, was, of cuorse, our ALLY druing World War II.  However, Stalin was a LEFTIST (for whom other leftists made EXCUSES at the time--calling him an "agrarian reformer".  That means that you will never see that headline on the present Associated Press, or the present AOL.
Then there was Mao, another leftist, and the Chinese "cultural revolution that killed TENS OF MILLIONS of people. 
North Korea itself is almost universally recognized as the most STALINIST regime in the world today--a murderer of many more than "thousands".
What is the AP suggesting we DO about this, or that we should have done at the time?  Withdraw our support for South Korea (a present DEMORCARY)?  Should we have let North Korea overrun South Korea?  Nope.  This is anti-American PROPAGANDA, pur and simple.  The above AP authors are anti-American.  I will go further:  they are EVIL people.  I have said before that ANYONE working for the Associated Press should be ASHAMED, and should resign (as Barack Obama should have resigned long ago from Reverend Wright's church).
For this is REverend Wright territory.  This article is from the "hate America" school--directly out of Reverend Wright's teachings that the U.S.A. is the main source of terror in the world. 
Remember Reverend Wright's statements after 9/11 about the U.S. being as bad as al-Qaida, and how the U.S. (Truman again) was a terrorist for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and how we had committed all of these other terrorist acts? 
There is just no excuse for the way AOL and the despicable AP have presented this story.  They are definitely no better than Reverend Wright. They may be worse.   Consider this comment under this story on AOL, which illustrates exactly the "hate America" audience around the world to which this anti-American propaganda is addressed (presented with my response): 

"Gee, where are are the neo-cons now? Just asking!"

Read my posts (similar to entry above).  We are where we always were--NOT blaming th U.S. for every evil inthe world, but instead recognizing the PRIMARY sources of evil in the woord.  Where are the LEFTISTS now?  They are NOT leading the fight against the real evils in the world, and never have (since World War II).  WHERE are the leftists today: 

I will tell you:  Still blaming the U.S.A. for every evil in the world, and EXCUSING the real evil doers in the world.  They are also working for AOL and the ani-American Associated Press, putting out disgraceful anti-American propaganda.

Here is another AOL comment, and my response:

"This was a true genocide that needs to be investigated by the UN under whose auspicies the defense of the South Korean "democracy" was carried out in 1950-1953."

Uh-huh. At least he above post gets the JURISDICTION right. The truly despicable AP, and AOL, do NOT (in their headline--the single slupidest, anti-American PROPAGANDA headline I have ever seen). South Korea was NOt, in fact, our "ally" in the Korean War. The UNITED NATIONS intevened to stop an act of naked aggression by North Korea.

What does the above person suggest? That Harry Truman be convicted POSTHUMOUSLY as a WAR CRIMINAL? That the present, democratic government of South Korea by deposed and replaced with a STALINIST government like that of North Korea (universally recognized as one of the worst governments in the world today)? Talk about "genocide". North Korea has been committing murder on a mini-Stalin like scale for some 60 years.

Here is a final comment from AOL under this story, with only a brief comment by me:

"So much for blaming Iraq for the WMD which was all a lie. The US govt. should be brought before the UN Human Rights and seriously questioned. This is why other nations no longer respect the US. Do you blame them? NO!! What a shameful government. Always blaming other nations but can't see the wicked of their way!"

Q.E.D.  To people like this, and those responsible for this AOL/AP story, Saddam Hussein was a GOOD GUY (better than the U.S.).  As stated, to theese people, the U.S. is the main source of evil in the world

I feel strongly about this one, and therefore am repeating below the earlier versions of the main entry above, which are in the form they were posted on AOL (reverse order).  Even though these primarily duplicate what I say above, I am including them for the sake of completeness:

skip3366 06:39:45 PM May 18 2008

Maybe the despicable AOL and the despicable AOL would like to do a story on the peole the LEFTIST Stalin murdered, or that the LEFTIST North Koreans have murdered (druing the Korean War and afterward. Then there are the LEFIST Red Chineese, who MURDERED uncounted MILLIONS of people during the infamous "cultural revolution" of that famous LEFTIST, MAO.

Ooops!!! I forgot. The AP, and AOL, only do anti-AMIERICAN propaganda, becaue they believe (along with Reverend Wright--and Barack Obama?) that the U.S A. is the primary source of evil in the world.

skip3366 06:33:44 PM May 18 2008

Truly despicable Associated Press: Source of consistently anti-American PROPAGANDA.

You doubt me (you FOOL you; maybe you, too, could have a job as an anti-American propaganist with the Associated Press, or AOL). Read the HEADLINE. Then understand that this is lkabeled an AP IMPACT sotry, even though it dates from 1950 in a war of agression conducted by NORTH KOREA. "U.S. ally" indeed!!!!! Are the truly despicable AP, and AOL, usggesting that SouthKorea should NOT have been an ally? Harry Truman, by the way, a DEOMRAT, was President of the United Staes (as he was during those OTHER "terrorist" actions by the U.S. at Hiroshima and Nagsaki (autority: Reverend Wright, which is proably why Barack Obama impliedly endorsed Reverend Wright during all of those years).

Did you know that ANOTHER U.S "ally" massacred 20 milion people before, during and after World War II? Absolutely true. That was the Soviet Union under that human monster, Joseph Stalin--an "ally" during World War II.  It is now recognized that Stalin deliberately enganed in gneocide.



P.S.  "neo-con" is a slur term, meant as an all purpose insult, with no objective meaning.