Price of Gas

If only we could harness the hot air coming from Washington!!! Not an original thought, I know, but, those people are so full of crap I can't believe it. What is it with people looking for simple solutions to complex problems? I'm no huge fan of the oil companies... in fact, I once wrote a manuscript (in my semi-Marxist days) that proposed nationalizing the oil companies because oil is so important to our national security and economy. I no longer consider that a viable solution, given that the government would screw it up far more than the oil companies would.

How many of you have received the "boycott Exxon" e-mail?

The solution to the energy problem is clear. It begins with more domestic drilling. Naturally, using the most highly environmentally friendly, high tech methods available. Let's go to ANWR, drill offshore, etc. Secondly, we need to build refineries. Again, the most environmentally friendly... etc. etc. Let's also keep in mind that it is the Dems that have prevented that. Anything they say about oil prices or oil companies should all be filtered through: a huge part of the problem is THEIR fault! If Republicans can't use that to bludgeon the Dems in the mid-terms, they deserve to lose. (God help us if they do!)

Secondly, the government has to stop talking about throwing government money at alternative fuels. I don't know this for a fact, but my instincts tell me that people waiting for government funding are far less productive than people being creative and entrepreneurial. Plus, government money ALWAYS comes with strings. We don't need strings, we need outside of the box thinking. People who are hooked on thinking of hydrogen vehicles are going to be wrong (again, a gut reaction). I predict two things will happen... first, getting the hydrogen will turn out to be a high energy use process that may slightly diminish energy usage, but won't be the panacea that so many think it will. Also, the output is water. If nothing is coming out of the tailpipe but H2O, that sounds great and clean, but the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. Not to mention the bummer of increased humidity in cities. It will be a matter of a short period of time before the environmentalists will be screaming bloody murder about the increase of water vapor in our environment. May sound stupid, but it's true.

If the government is going to help, what it needs to do is not throw money at the problem, but get the f_ck out of the way of the entrepreneurs and capitalists. Maybe give tax breaks for investment in entrepreneurial attempts to solve the problem, but don't give away money. They will not know what to support or what level of support to give a particular idea. I bet the answer is not even out there yet. Some dude in his garage, or sitting in a science or engineering class will come up with something that no one has even considered yet. The more the government spends, the more we'll be fixated on a particular solution, that will predictably not be the best solution. But, it'll get entrenched. Keep in mind, both hydrogen and electricity require some form of energy to create them. Even if it's the sun, or wind, it takes an array of some kind to harness it, and as we've seen with the Martha's Vinyard wind farm, people are loathe to have these arrays near them.

What we need to do is get the government to get out of the way as much as possible. Let the oil companies buy us some time via drilling and building refineries (make them have as small an environmental footprint as possible, but let them do it). In the mean time, support research and development, not by giving money away, but by incentivising MORE entrepreneurial efforts. Don't let the government bureaucracies pick and choose... let the markets and the people create the answer and the best one will surface.

We need to stop blaming oil companies for everything. These morons in Washington actually think that taking money from them will lower the prices. Since when did taxing a corporation make the corporation want to lower prices to further reduce their bottom line? The government's profit on a gallon of gas is higher than the oil companies' profit... why don't they cut that directly if they want to lower the price? Even that, though, is a pittance of the overall price of a gallon of gas. The rest of it is a result of our reliance on foreign oil. The vast majority of our gas price is in the costs to the oil companies, not their profits. Domestic supply and domestic refining reduces costs, and THAT is what is needed.

From a political point of view, this is a HUGE opportunity for the Republicans to demonstrate that it is Democrat policies that have caused and continue to cause the problems. How long have they been preventing new refineries from being built? How long have they been preventing domestic drilling? It far precedes the Bush administration, and it has continued through the first five years of Bush administration. People are feeling pain... the Republicans should let the people know who has really caused that pain. It wasn't the free market! It is interference by pandering by the Dems to environmental concerns, no matter how unfounded due to new technology. Hell, they could even give a hat tip to environmentalists having caused the oil companies to become environmentally aware and developing technology to be as environmentally freindly as possible while still getting the job done.

Will they be smart, or will they pander to the most base instincts of the uninformed and make themselves look as stupid and weak as the Democrats in the process?

MSM Using the Old Ploy

You know the old ploy? It's sort of like the "straw man" argument. You start your argument by saying, "Everybody knows..." or, "The vast majority of Americans think..."

For example, I heard just today that "Everybody knows that the vast majority of Americans think [the double whammy] that the prosecution of the Iraq war is going badly." (Can't remember the name of the liberal talking head who said it... sorry for not having the quote credited).

Personally, I don't know the vast majority of Americans, but of the people I do know, if they think about Iraq at all (they're typically just busy leading their lives) think it's great we toppled Saddam and they hope it works out, but they know that how it works out will be up to the Iraqis, not us.

Of course, "Everybody knows..." should be replaced by, "Everybody has been told over and over again, whether it's true or not, that..." For example, "Everybody knows Saddam had no WMD or weapons program." Well, we don't KNOW that. In fact, everybody who's been paying attention (which has to be a serious minority of the people), knows that evidence continues to trickle in that Saddam likely had them and hid them well, and that Saddam definitely was planning to rebuild them, and likely wasn't even waiting for the sanctions to be lifted, given he was so good at getting money through OFF, and deceiving the UN inspectors. So, if "Everybody knows he didn't have them" then "everybody" is not paying attention. Everybody can't have a leftist agenda!

It also seems that the elusive everybody is ready to bring in the Dems because Bush is weak on immigration, gas prices are high, and (contrary to ALL evidence other than gasoline prices) the economy is weak. So... Everybody apparently wants to change out Republican leadership for Democrat leadership, despite the fact that Dems are even weaker on border enforcement and "amnesty" than Republicans, Democrats have no plan to lower gas prices other than to take money from the oil companies (a good plan, because everyone knows that when taxes are raised, lowering profits, the first thing a company does is lower prices to make even smaller profits) or give lip service to the panacea of alternative fuels (which are way out in the future) while still restricting the oil companies from building new refineries or drilling for more oil (despite the fact that technological improvements over time have enabled refineries to be cleaner and drilling footprints to be incredibly small and clean), and the Dems answer on the economy is always "more taxes, more help from new government programs". You want to see a bad economy and even worse gasoline prices? See what happens to the markets the day after Dems take over control of the House and Senate. I'm not on Wall Street, but it would scare the hell out of me and have me telling my money managers to sell oil short, sell stocks, and button up wallets.

The new one that the former generals in the Rumsfeld kerfuffle are bringing out is that everybody knows that the planning for Iraq was bad because we let the Baathist army disperse and didn't have enough boots on the ground. Um... exactly how much control did we have over the Baathist army, and how, when they "melted away" were we supposed to round them up and keep them in service to a new (though far from established) regime? How would the Kurds and Sunnis have responded to us keeping the army that was the club over their heads in place? Would that have led to a better result, or a much, much worse result? I can just see the soldiers from all of these additional forces we should've had running around to the former regime's soldiers and telling them that now they're free and they're fighting for US. What? Or maybe they could've been combing the desert for Saddam's arsenal. Trained for such activities or not...

It's just all complete and utter bullshit. 20/20 hindsight isn't 20/20, it's usually speculation. Here's my theory... if we'd just sent one really big, strong guy over to punch Saddam right in the face and knock him cold, everyone would've been so impressed by our strength and prowess that they'd have instantly held an election, set up a government, and the Baathists, Iranian backed terrorists, Al Queda, any other Islamofascist would've been far to afraid of our big, strong guy to even lift a finger to stop the democratic revolution in Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are complete morons for not having figured out how to get that one big, strong guy into Iraq and close enough to Saddam to punch him in the face. It's incompetence, I tell you. Think of the lives that would've been saved! If I'd have thought Rummy would listen, instead of being arrogant and dismissive, I'd have sent a letter detailing my "punch in the face" plan.

Euston Manifesto... Interesting!

Please go to Normblog to read the Euston Manifesto. It's a manifesto for leftists that are basically sick and tired of the far fringes of the left dominating the debate coming from that side of the proverbial aisle.

I didn't agree with all of it, because I think there's an underlying current of "capitalists are bad" despite the fact that successful capitalism tends to produce the very results they'd like to see economically and even democratically. However, overall, I wholeheartedly agree with Paul at Powerline: When I was a liberal, THIS is closer to the kind of liberal I was and the so-called "progressives" and the left in general has completely left me bewildered.

Truthfully, I see the real progressives (if the meaning is something like "those committed to social, political, economic and general human progress") on the right, in the conservative momement in this country (of course, always leaving the far fringe dangling out there where they belong). Who is trying (once again) to defeat vicious totalitarianism, this time in the form of Islamofascism? Who is fighting for the rights of women and minorities in places where they are most oppressed? Who is dedicated to the spread of freedom and democracy? Who is working for broad-based capitalism that gives ordinary people the opportunity to better their lives and takes total economic control away from oppressive governments? It ain't the left, my friends.

In fact (this is what bewilders me), it is the left, the so-called progressives, that protest against the actions people on the right are taking to produce the results that they should want.

If this was just a disagreement over methodology, I'd welcome the debate. But, as the Manifesto points out, there is no realism in the far left's argument, because the methodology they would recommend has proven completely ineffective. For example, Kerry's "everything must go through the UN" approach, despite the fact they are the most hapless bunch in history, complete with corruption, self-centered rather than "what's right" motives (e.g. Oil For Food and France and Russia regarding Saddam, or the entire Arab block regarding Israel, or the human rights violators leading the UN human rights organizations), and straight up incompetence (Sudan, the response to the tsunami, Rwanda, etc.). Another example (which is in the Manifesto), is socialism. While the Manifesto seems to have socialist leanings, it does acknowledge that Communist and Socialist regimes amounted to nothing more than murderous tyrannies. If only even the right thinking left, as represented by those who wrote and support the Manifesto, could finally see that the European style socialism that they like is, instead of producing the kind of economic freedom and personal liberty they would love to see, producing economic stresses that will cause systemic collapse (and, hence, MORE joblessness and LESS economic security and personal liberty), they'd REALLY have something.

It does, however, acknowledge that the people the so-called liberals have aligned themselves with, intentionally or not, tend to be the worst kind of tyrants, monarchs, and theocrats. And it admonishes the left to disengage themselves from those entanglements. Basically, it acknowledges that there IS an enemy to freedom, democracy, and progress that does have to be defeated, lest we stop progress and go backward.

It's well worth the read, and it would be incredibly good if the right and left could begin debating from there, rather than from "Bush and the right are wrong in everything they do and anything and anyone that opposes them is OK with us!" My opinion is that the left needs to get back to the more rational place represented by the Manifesto, or everything "progressive" we've gained as humanity will be thwarted by the Islamists (hey, they're only a millenium or a millenium and a half behind in their thinking!), or, at best, the battle to retain the progress will be fought at close quarters.

My Letter to Republican Leaders

Consistent with my post below, the following is the letter I sent to John McCain and several others regarding the illegal immigration issue:

Dear Senator McCain,

I know immigration reform is a complex issue and I applaud the fact that it is finally being addressed in a thoughtful manner. However, I, like most Americans, and certainly most Republicans, must emphasize that border enforcement must be the priority. I like the provisions in the bill currently being considered that basically insist that immigrants assimilate into the American culture (rather than bringing pockets of the culture they are escaping to our country). But, if the borders are not
closed, this problem will recur, and likely in short order.

I'm also curious how congress proposes to identify the length of time people have
been here, and deal with the likely cheating on that issue. If they can get fake SSNs, what will be difficult about getting fake evidence that they've been here for X-number of years? That appears to be the downfall of the plan as it is currently being considered.

I appreciate your consideration on these issues. And I urge you to be cognizant of the overwhelming support for border control as the primary concern for most citizens.

Republicans--Stop Threatening to Cause Defeat

I love the right side of the blogosphere. I'm a regular reader of many blogs, and and occasional reader of many more. I also listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. One thing I keep seeing over and over, and saw just now on Michelle Malkin's awesome blog, was a threat that "If this is what Sen. Frist thinks Americans "expect" and "deserve," the GOP is in for a very rude awakening in November." The subject was the apparent immigration deal.

There can't be much thought put into a threat that Republicans won't elect Republican leaders. Who else are we going to vote for? Would we feel like we "really got those bastards" if suddenly the Democrats were in charge? Cutting one's nose off to spite one's face has never been a good plan. It would NOT be a good lesson to Republican leaders to have liberals running the country for the next two years and castrating Pres. Bush for the remainder of his term.

Maybe we could just show our apathy by not voting at all. SAME result.

And, we have GOT to be aware that our enemies (and I don't just mean political opponents in the US, I mean the Islamofacists) are just waiting for us to elect weaker leaders, or to have Bush weakened beyond hope. They're trying to help it happen, and they're hoping that, if worst comes to worst, they don't have to wait much longer than Nov. '08.

We can NOT give up the majority. Yes, some of these people are acting weak and don't seem to represent the conservatives that elected them. It's a difficult position for the party to be in. But the answer is not to give up the majority. The answer is to get extremely vocal. The answer is to start putting these RINOs and near RINOs through some tough primary fights that let them know they have to come closer to the base, or we'll find someone who is. If you're not writing letters and e-mails to your congressmen and senators, START. Find solid conservatives in your district or your state and start sending your funds to them, and let the RNC know that you're sending your contributions to better conservatives.

We do not want to go weak (or weaker) for even a moment. We wouldn't want to live with the results in domestic politics, and we definitely don't want to live with the result in the war against Islamofacism.