Archive for June, 2010

Our High Priests Want to Nationalize the Oil Companies

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

All the world’s history of government falls into two chapters: You have the older chapter of agricultural societies, in which a single individual does whatever he wants to do, engaging a machinery of bureaucracy to carry out his dictates with all sorts of hidden agendas at that layer — they all claim to be acting on behalf of God. Then, after the Industrial Revolution, you have a similar arrangement in which one individual does whatever he wants, with the assistance of a bureaucracy chock full of hidden agendas, and they claim to be acting on behalf of a new god called “The People.”

Neal Boortz says (and he’s absolutely right) —

Now remember how this administration works: never let a good crisis go to waste. The financial collapse, housing, the auto industry, healthcare – the narrative is this: first you have to have to create or exaggerate a “crisis” and then the government swoops in to fix it. By “fix” I mean, take it over. Run it. Permanently. Just remember that there is no such thing as “temporary” to the federal government, or any government, for that matter.

Acting on behalf of The People, our government is getting ready to pounce on “The Oil Companies” and take them over. Basically take them over. Oh, how I do loathe that word “basically”; for whoever truly labors to communicate with honesty, no-holds-barred, this word has no meaning and no purpose.

Not clear on what I mean by that? Watch this.

Yeah it’s all about a different word. “Sociali– uh, er, ah, basically…”

I do not typically approve of sarcasm being used to completely support a point. When that is done, the entire argument is typically dragged down into the lower realms of idiocy, stupidity and abject silliness. But some things are patently absurd and can only be revealed as absurd through exaggeration. What our god-kings are trying to do with “Those Oil Companies” has started to come under this heading. The theme that is permeating throughout all of these plans, the core underlying philosphy, is bollywonkers.

Let us illustrate the absurdity.

Don’t let them drill anywhere. Inland, offshore. And slap a huge excise tax on any oil imported. Regulate how the oil is imported, regulate how it is exchanged, regulate how it is refined, regulate how it is transported. And then regulate the regulators. Slap a big fat surcharge on anything these Bad People do with the oil. Demand a new environmental impact statement anytime a gas station so much as sells a new brand of chewing gum. Tax their refineries, tax their trucks, tax their pumps, tax their buildings, tax their land, tax their office equipment, tax them when they pay their taxes. Slap a national ceiling on gas at the pump, gasoline futures, light sweet crude, cap their bonuses, cap their salaries, audit them whenever they declare a dividend, when the stock splits, make ’em pay, pay, pay. Make it impossible for anyone to make a profit in that wicked business, anywhere, anytime, doing anything.

Then let’s all stand back and watch those gas prices fall like a stone!

Basically.

Let’s pop back into the real world for a second now…

What we have with this oil spill, is a lesson in the folly of appealing to Gaea. We had all sorts of strict environmental rules put in place, and successfully enforced. They didn’t even all have to do with the petroleum products industries, a lot of them just had to do with preserving this-or-that bear/bird/seal/moose whatever. Our oil exploration efforts were pushed way out to sea in order to comply with these environmental dictates, and now you see the results.

Gaea’s pissed. Of course it makes sense for her to be pissed now…but what about our move to push the oil drilling out to sea, to preserve the snail darter and the Mynah bird? Don’t we at least get an A for effort? Is Gaea gonna tell us she’s really upset about the oil in the gulf but she appreciates what we were trying to do?

This is the trouble with government’s third chapter, in which the guy-at-the-top and the hidden-agenda-bureaucracies purport to represent this new god called Gaea: The outcome is predetermined. Mankind is never at its best, or even at adequate. It’s always a screw-up.

Had we just called the whole thing off and told the environmentalists to go piss up a rope, there wouldn’t be an oil spill in the gulf right now. That’s a fact.

Al Gore as a James Bond Movie Villain?

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Mister Vice President, sir, as soon as those papers are finalized I think you might be ready to report in.

Update: Ahh…who doesn’t believe in coincidences? Look what just popped up on the news wire.

My dear girl, keeping Dom Perignon above 38 degrees is like listening to The Beatles without earmuffs.

Death of “Drill Baby Drill”?

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Eugene Robinson’s ignorance stuns and amazes me. Is there a longtime Robinson reader out there, somewhere, who can point me to the last time this writer has ever recognized an unintended consequence of something?

It would benefit him to see that Charles Krauthammer piece to which I linked Sunday, but I’ve got a feeling it would be a case of leading a horse to water.

It’s a pretty simple situation.

When you drill in a mile of water, and a pipe ruptures, it is really, really hard to shut off the flow of oil. Of course it’s a monumental task to clean the oil off the flora and fauna once it gets into the water.

We need oil. Now. We cannot import it all.

So let’s drill on land. And if someone comes up with some species of mammal that might possibly, maybe, perhaps, we don’t know, find it difficult to live/eat/hunt/breed around the resulting apparatus, we show them a few dead oil-covered pelicans from the Gulf. If they still have something to say, then just walk away because they’re only weighing one side of the argument.

Drill-baby-drill is dead now? It just got vindicated.

Buck Doesn’t Like Ann Coulter

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

And I disagree. In fact, I’m struggling to figure out what exactly is the objection. I’ve heard Coulter has this reputation for being incendiary and sarcastic and I understand that is true.

Our blogger friend in New Mexico strongly prefers P.J. O’Rourke and has put up, as Exhibit A, an O’Rourke piece wishing for newspapers to save their own necks (possibly) by printing pre-obituaries on the left-wing luminaries who are still among us but could exit momentarily. This seems, to me, an exercise in simply getting away with more. Fantasies about living people dying? “What if Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck wished people dead?” is such an obvious rejoinder to make, I’m a little embarrassed to type in the words.

I have enjoyed many of O’Rourke’s works and admire the man greatly. Something must be flying over my head, because I don’t see this piece as his best. It is a single idea, nominally witty, with a whole lotta words burdening it. Besides of which it’s a little on the mean side. Like I said, who else can get away with wishing living liberals dead?

This so-often-deplored sarcasm — you don’t have to study the situation long, to figure out the sarcasm is deplored less or more depending on the identity of the person putting it out — is clearly receiving a bum rap. Sarcasm can be used to make some good points, points that cannot be made any other way. In moments when our collective attention span has been chiseled away, to such an extent it becomes a precious commodity, sarcasm can become indispensable.

Here‘s an example of what I’m talking about:

[I]t would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president’s entire national security strategy didn’t depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger’s crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama’s only national defense strategy is: Let’s hope their bombs don’t work!

If only Dr. Hasan’s gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.

Is the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism strategy really one of hoping the bombs don’t go off? It’s doubtful you can find a piece of paper lying around somewhere with those words appearing in sequence upon it. But it is what is put into practice, not what rolls off the printer, that really counts right?

And it really doesn’t matter how many people find this kind of writing to be abrasive and nasty. Not if the reason they’re finding it to be abrasive and nasty, is that it happens to be accurate.

As for whether it’s important to reflect on this, I’ll leave that to you to decide. Speaking for myself, I’m not coming up with many things that could be much more important than that. Our government is governing us the same way my son safeguards those toys of his that he outgrew awhile back; they’re “his,” but if someone came by and took one of them away, he’d never in a million years notice it. The protection, in fact the mere inventorying, is purely passive.

The current administration’s counter-terrorism strategy is to hope the bombs don’t go off, says Coulter. Don’t like that? Point out some bit of evidence that refutes this, or at least challenges it. Or if it’s worthy of our attention but you don’t like seeing Coulter raising the issue, point the way to someone else bringing it up.

We’re Too Broke To Be This Stupid

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Mark Steyn:

Back in 2008, when I was fulminating against multiculturalism on a more or less weekly basis, a reader wrote to advise me to lighten up, on the grounds that “we’re rich enough to afford to be stupid.”

Two years later, we’re a lot less rich. In fact, many Western nations are, in any objective sense, insolvent. Hence last week’s column, on the EU’s decision to toss a trillion dollars into the great sucking maw of Greece’s public-sector kleptocracy. It no longer matters whether you’re intellectually in favour of European-style social democracy: simply as a practical matter, it’s unaffordable.

How did the Western world reach this point? Well, as my correspondent put it, we assumed that we were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.

Irritating, because some of us didn’t need the lesson. The snarky reader had already lost us with the implication that stupidity is a luxury affordable to the wealthy. If that’s the case, then how come when I am so privileged to make the social connection to those from a more affluent class than Yours Truly, albeit only on a temporary basis, I find them putting so much more effort into trying not to do stupid things?

If You’re a Goof-Off, You Can Afford to Bully People

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Go back and read that headline again. Think about informal, small-group human politics. Imagine you’re in a group of people, perhaps a work/office environment, and you want to bully everyone else into doing things your way.

If you’re the work-a-holic, it isn’t going to work out. You’ll be seen as what you are, which is a buttinski meanie-cow.

But the goof-offs, as you’ll see in the video below, manage to make this work for them just fine. They get to point their goof-off fingers in the air, make some kind of proclamation, and start waggling that lazy finger in the faces of people who’ve managed to get a whole lot more work done, and tell them what to do.

In fact, how many little kids movies have you seen in which the moral of the parable, realized in the last fifteen minutes of the film, has something to do with not working so hard. How many doofus-dad movies have you seen that are doofus-dad movies because doofus-dad barely manages to figure out “Hey! I spend too many hours at the office! I need to spend more of my life trying to figure out what my (step)kids want, and making sure they get it!”


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Know what I think? I think the desire to boss around total strangers comes first. The desire for more vacation time is simply an outgrowth of that, because you can afford to be a control-freak if you’re for more leisure but you can’t afford to be one if you want more work to get done.

Most of the “revolutions” arriving in our sterilized, pasteurized, overly-mature, overripe, metastasizing society lately adhere to this central theme: Things aren’t cushy enough, and we gots ta have a new law. And the motivation? Very rarely does anyone say now that I see things work a certain way from my experience building something, we’ve got to do x x and x. No, as you can see in the video above, it so often comes from consensus. The “aw gee Ma, everybody else is doing it” argument.

This is the kind of thing that achieves momentum with people, when they’re bored. How is it that we’re so stressed out about our economic situation, and at the same time, we’re bored? That’s the other problem. We don’t see our economic wherewithal, or lack thereof, as a consequence of our actions. Here’s this differential between the way things are and the way we want them to be, and — nobody grabs a hammer & nails. Nobody goes looking for firewood. Nobody talks to anybody else about bartering something, or “Where’s the best place to buy a (fill in the blank).” Our national character has changed; now, the energy is immediately, automatically, channeled into that new law we need to have.

And then everything will really be perfect.

But since only goof-offs can get away with such bullying, the new law never, ever, ever has to do with getting more work done or more business transacted. That won’t happen. And yet this frenzied, chaotic construction of the out-of-control nanny state, will continue.

Hat tip to Boortz.

Michigan Considers Law to License Journalists

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Fox News:

A Michigan lawmaker wants to license reporters to ensure they’re credible and vet them for “good moral character.”

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”

Go for it, jerk. In fact, after you get that one on the books why don’t you get word of it to our U.S. Congress. Maybe they can get a nationwide-counterpart bill started, in time to make an issue out of it for this year’s elections. Let’s see if the people are in favor of it. Run on it.

I like that idea a lot. I think you should do it.

Hipster Olympics

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Hat tip to Joe America, who is brother & annoying liberal gadfly to Mark.

Much more fun to be had at hipster expense, at Unhappy Hipsters.