Democrats Hot Air Energy Plan

With the price of oil hitting a record high this week, I figured it was about time to point out some of the maddening inconsistencies in the opposition's current policy. The Democrats are demanding (more) hearings with oil executives in regards to price gouging. They also point to Exxon-Mobil CEO Lee Raymond's huge, recently exercised retirement package as evidence that Big Oil is screwing the consumer and lining its own pockets. The question I have for Messrs. Kennedy, Kerry, Wyden and Reid is as follows: Who exactly is screwing the consumer to line their own pockets, Big Oil or Big Government?

For better or worse, the Democratic Party has made a major policy issue out of protecting the environment. This can be done in one of two ways; we can either curb our dirty behaviors, or find cleaner ways to do them. Because it is the dirtiest industry we have, the energy sector is the most frequent target of the greens. Through taxation and legislation, we have regulated the amount and means by which energy can produced in this country. In practice, that means we have severely limited the capacities of our existing oil refineries and exploration stations while simultaneously requiring so many initial costs on the creation of any more that we have had less than a dozen built of either in the last 30 years. In addition, each state has the right to limit certain toxins in their gasoline, meaning our few refineries need to produce over 20 different types of gas. If that wasnt enough to curb production, we simply tax the shit out of all refined fossil fuels on both the federal and state levels to try and limit consumption.

To all the economists out there: Environmentalism moves the energy supply curve to the left. What does that do to price and quanity?

I dont know enough about the environment to know if these are good, or even worthwhile policy directives, and I do know enough about politics to avoid giving all the blame (or credit, as the case may be) to the Democrats. To their credit, the environmentalist movement in this country has been one of the best organized and politically diverse lobbies in America, and for that they deserve commendation; what other interest group in America encompasses members of the NRA and Green-peace? They have successfully convinced both Republicans and Democrats of the validity of their ideas to the point that their two most visible successes (Creation of the EPA, Clean Air Act) of the past 35 years were signed by GOP Presidents. Despite my tepid opposition to most ideas espoused by the greens, I have to admire their stunning success in influencing American energy policy for 2 generations. They set out to limit supply in both production and consumption and have been stunningly successful in convincing politicians of their merits.

While the GOP has been involved at times, no reasonable person, whether Green or Big Oil, would say that the Republican Party has led the environmentalist charge. In the few times they have capitulated, they have been dragged kicking and screaming.

And here's the rub: The people who have followed the dogged course of environmentalism are now the ones screaming the loudest about gas and energy prices. Am I the only one bothered that the very people who have contributed to the outrageous surcharges we pay for energy , are the ones screaming the loudest about its current price? (Less than 50% of the price of a gallon of gas is oil, the rest is taxes, refining and transportation costs) Worse still are New England Democrats who consistently vote to tax home heating oil, then demand the other 44 states help us pay to heat our homes in the winter because the price is so damn high. My own Congressman, Bill Delahunt, a man who has never seen an energy tax he didnt like, felt the need to beg Venezuelan President and near enemy of the US Hugo Chavez for help for my districts energy costs.

This is why no one is excited by the Democratic party anymore. For 40 years they have had a policy which they have implemented with stunning success, yet they refuse to even take credit for it, for fear of mild political backlash. Go back and listen to Algore's speeches. He specifically calls for raising taxes, thus prices, on energy to protect our atmosphere. If that's your policy, stand up for it, and defend the consequences as necessary for the stated goal. Dont try and create a boogy man out of Big Oil. Anyone who grew up in Texas will remember the late 1980's when the price of oil was literally so low that it cost more to take it out of the ground than it did to buy it and entire communities (and one of W's failed enterprices) collapsed. If Oil Companies could control the price of their own product, we would have seen them use that power then.

Simply put, there are two causes for high gas prices; world demand has surged, and through regulation and taxes, enviornmentalism has raised it past simple supply and demand. It is my sincere hope that those responsible for the latter will simply acknowledge their success and keep their mouths shut the next time market forces drive gas prices higher.

New Posts Coming

I am finally settled in here, and I will be posting a couple of new articles in the coming days. Thanks to all who posted comments urging us back to work.

Higs' Whack Jobs of the Week: Feminists for Hillary

Once again, I've had enough. Now, I'm tired of women who believe that the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a step forward in the so called "women's movement."

Let's tell Ms Rodham's life story. She grew up in a upper middle class family, went to a prestigous all women's college (Wellesley), and met an affable southern man at Georgetown Law. At this point in her life, she had dreams of her own career in politics, and even worked in a high posiition in the Watergate affair, but her new beau (for whom she had dumped a less ambitious man) wanted to run for Congress. So she gave up her dreams and moved to Arkansas. He lost, but later won an election for State Attorney General and then won, lost and won elections for Governor. During her husband's campaign for President, he gained 40 pounds (his number, not mine) and was charged with Sexual Harrasment of a former employee. Hillary famously remarked she was no "Tammy Waynette" who would "stand by her man (if she caught him cheating)." Her candor earned the trust of the American people, and her husband became President.

Mrs Rodham had her own troubles too, involved with a shady cattle-trading deal where she made a ton of money and a property deal in which she lost a similarly large sum. Both scadals involved criminal convictions of her associates, though because she "couldnt find" her records until after the statute of limitations had expired, Hil was never formally charged.
Her posh life continued in the White House, where whispers surfaced of her own (lesbian) infidelities surfaced. Finally, she was confronted with the fact that her husband had in fact cheated, on a number of occasions. Breaking her promise, she stood by her man. Not because she loved him, mind you, but because she wanted to run for the Senate. I'm not so cynical to say there was no love, but if Hillary were the indepentdant woman she so fashioned, you'd like to think she would have had the dignity to at least do something other than roll-over and defend her cheating husband.

After the White House, she rode her husband's popularity to the Senate, where she has distinguished herself in precisely no way. There are plenty of women in the Senate who, you know, actually take stands, but the junior Senator from NY is not one. If she had not been married to a very popular president, would we even talk about her as a contender for anything except a tough reelection?

Here we arrive at the Feminists. They want more than anything to have a female President. Hillary will do just fine, but what does that say about the feminist movement? This is the embodyment of female empowerment? Marry a powerfull man, do nothing to distinguish yourself apart from him, and expect to ride his name to further power...every girl's dream of independence. I'm sure it would be nice for women to have someone looking out for "women's issues" but can you count on a Clinton to take a tough stand, buck public opinion and fight for something unpopular? Hillary will govern exactly as Bill; she will bow at the altar of popular sentiment and nothing will get done, not even for women. There are plenty of women far more deserving of your support.

Republicans offer an alternative. A girl who grew up poor in rural Alabama and has flowered into a wildly successful cabinent member, academic, and concery pianist, all without ever marrying. Talk about the feminist dream. But alas, she is a Bush Republican, henceforth evil and unworthy of the "enlightened vote." Feminists have a choice, independant woman vs sugar daddy's girl.

08 Straw Poll

With a lot of talk recently on the upcoming presidential election, I thought I would gauge the level of interest our readers have in the GOP primary.

Whack Job of the Week: Kim Jong-Il

I just read that last week North Korea test fired two short-range ballistic missiles. Honestly, I was not that surprised because, frankly, there is little Pyongyang can do to surprise me anymore. But, when I continued to read the article, I discovered that these two missiles were launched in the direction of the People’s Republic of China. It’s not as if the global community needed any more evidence that Kim Jong-Il is a raving, unstable lunatic that has no business running a sovereign state. Yet, when Kim starts launching missiles in the direction of one of his few “friends” in the world, one is forced to wonder what the result of an active nuclear weapons program and long-range missile program will ultimately be.

The cult of personality that surrounds the “Dear Leader” borders on full-blown absurdity, but the North Korean propaganda machine has done wonders to keep the population in the dark. Cellular phones are strictly forbidden and only the most trusted party cadres have internet access. According to North Korean lore, Kim Jong-Il was born in a log cabin at his father's guerilla base on North Korea's highest mountain, Mt Paektu, in February 1942 (actually he was born in 1941 in Siberia). The event was reportedly marked by a double rainbow, and a bright star in the sky. Apparently he deserved the double rainbow birth because some years later Kim wrote six operas in a little less than two years, which is one the qualities you hope to have in a despot developing nuclear weapons.

North Korea has relied on food aid from the international community since 1995 when natural disasters caused the collapse of the economy and threw the country into a prolonged famine that it has yet to recover from. While his people are suffering, the Dear Leader lives a decadent lifestyle. Kim apparently has developed a taste for expensive foreign liquor and there are rumors that he has young women kidnapped from Japan to serve as his “companion.” Combine all this with a perm hairstyle and a love of platform shoes and it’s a miracle that any person living in his proximity is able to sleep at night.

With all this being said, you can become one of the few westerners allowed inside this modern day heart of darkness for a small price. Kim has extended invitations to several US tour operators to bring Americans into North Korea to see the Mass Games, which is a huge gymnastics festival and propaganda event. For a little over 5k, you can get up close and personal with the monument of the “Eternal Leader” Kim Il-Sung. If you have health problems, you may want to heed warnings from the State Department, which says that hospitals often lack heat, food, medicine. Sounds like one hell of a nationalized health care system. Maybe you’ll get to catch a movie with Kim, since he apparently loves American movies. I can only wonder what he thought of Team America. Oh yea, just make sure you aren't of Korean or Israeli heritage because you aren't welcome.

IS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE A GOOD THING?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of America is that if you are over the age of 18, then regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, or social status, you have the right to vote. While this is a fundamental liberty in our country and makes us truly unique, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Think about it. Why should someone be allowed to vote for a particular candidate if they have absolutely zero knowledge about where the candidate stands on issues??? For example, my lovely girlfriend will sprint to the polls in 2008 to vote for Hillary Clinton because she thinks that by electing a woman as President, it will end all violence in the World. However, what my lovely girlfriend doesn't know, is that Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq back in 2003, and to this day, has yet to truly voice an opinion against the War. So, in order to prevent such confusion and uneducated voting, I propose a simple solution: bring back the poll test.

By way of background, the poll test was used as a way to prevent Black people from voting back in the early 1900's. When Black people were finally granted suffrage, towns and villages required potential voters to pass a literacy test that also asked questions about the candidates before they could fill out a ballot. Because Blacks had been deprived of proper education at this time, most of them were unable to participate in elections (some areas also used a poll tax as a similar way to prevent Blacks and poor whites from casting votes). Now, the motives behind such a test were obviously cruel back during this period of time; however, I believe that the idea could be used in modern times in a positive manner to force people to learn about the candidates before election day.

I believe that America would be far more educated as a whole if voters were required to correctly answer a few simple questions before they went into the booth. I'm not talking about anything too in-depth here, but maybe a few questions like this:
1. Where does each candidate stand on Health Care;
2. What position does each candidate currently hold in office, if any;
3. Where does each candidate stand on international policy; and
4. To which party does each candidate belong.

These are pretty simple questions, but believe me, there a millions of people who voted in 2004 who wouldn't have been able to pass this test. By having a test like this, it would force people across the country to pay attention to the debates, read the newspaper every once in a while, and maybe, just maybe, even talk a little politics every once in a while. I love that America allows everyone to have a say in government by allowing each person to vote, but that doesn't mean we should show up to the polls without understanding the ramifications of our vote. I know that we will never actually implement a poll test again in this country, but you have to at least admit that it would make a little bit of sense.

Why The Left Hates "Crash"

The boys over at RedState have a great image to help us understand the left: KnownFacts™. It refers to commonly understood lies or mischaracterizations onto which the left grabs on, subsequently refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary. Examples are BushLied™, NoBidContractsForHalliburton™, BushHatesBlackPeople™, et al.

Two of the classic, eternal KnownFacts™ come under fire in Paul Haggis’ now Best Picture “Crash.” ConservativesAreRacist™ and RacistsAreIrredeemable™. In the mind of America’s “Civil Rights Crusade” any reluctance to support programs like Affirmative Action or Welfare is Racism manifested and must be fought. (I will ignore the irony that because far more white people are on welfare than blacks, an assumption that most blacks are poor is required to see racism in such a position). White people with actual prejudices are evil, everything they do is motivated by hatred, and thus they will never do a good deed as long as they live. Any racism towards whites is a justified reaction to their hatred and will be donned with the farcical term “reverse racism” in order to emphasize its reactionary nature. Finally, anyone who rejects the obvious hatred of conservatives is a fighter for the glorious cause of Equality, and is then immune from actual prejudice of their own. This is of course a broad swipe at a complex community. I don’t mean to lump all liberals in the same group, because there are undoubtedly some drug addicts and losers caught up in the crowd who hold a sign just to have someone to stand with.

I speak in such generalities for a couple reasons. For one, I have confronted enough people like this that I can say with some certainty that the stereotype is at least as accurate as the cry of Racist Conservative. More importantly though, the scathing critiques oozing out of the cesspools the last few days have been so general in their denunciations of “Crash” that they both reinforce my point and provide an opportunity to point out to those using such generalities, in images they understand, exactly why they don’t understand the film. Take this quote as an example:

“Sandra Bullock, as a pampered politician's wife, and Matt Dillon, as a racist LAPD officer, follow particularly improbable trajectories from bigotry to enlightenment: Each dares to hug a person of color.” ~Wesley Morris (My emphasis)

Reviews like this have been popping up all over our media in the last few days, all of them missing the depth and irony of Paul Haggis’ film. My particular favorite moment is when Ludacris, walking down the street of a well-lit UCLA neighborhood, derides Bullock for clenching on to her husband the moment she sees he and his black friend approaching. He explains why they’re the ones who should be scared, and that Bullock is racist for being afraid of them. Why aren’t we scared, he asks his friend. The response is priceless: “Cause we got the guns,” he responds before carjacking Bullock and her husband. By turning a typical talking point of the Civil Rights Crusade on its head, Haggis opens the film with a shot to gut of the “Racist Conservative” paradigm to which the left clings.

While there are plenty of other great moments like that, Haggis does not spend his time justifying bigotry. Yet, the worst offender of the “Crusade’s” cardinal sin, Matt Dillon’s character, is the heart of the movie. He is paired with a rookie cop played by Ryan Philippe and constantly displays his obvious bias against blacks. To be fair, he hates them, and behaves in exactly the way I have described; his bigotry affects everything he does. We learn later in the film that his father lost his business (where he employed dozens of minorities) to one of those absurd federal programs that require public contracts to go, at least in part, to minority owned firms. Leaving aside the jab Haggis gives to Affirmative Action, we see Dillon as a flawed man with an understandable, if not justified reason for his bias. Haggis rightly refuses to condone his actions, such as pulling over a black couple in an SUV or telling a black social worker she doesn’t deserve her job, but at least he gives us a reason for them, which is more than we can say about the general “Remember the Titans” displays of bigotry (where literally parts are cast with the title “racist #2”). That alone gives Crash a credibility lacking most films on the subject, but Haggis moves forward.

Dillon risks his life to save the very woman he had pulled over the night before. The “hug” to which Morris refers, is the embrace they share after Dillon crawls into a flipped and burning car that explodes only seconds after he pulls the trapped [black] woman from danger. Put plainly in the simplicity of the leftist mind, Haggis’s movie is stupid and uninspired because it is a KnownFact™ that someone like Dillon, an avowed racist, would never do anything to help a minority, let alone risk his life to save one. It is impossible for them to think that a man may put his duty or compassion ahead of his biases. They don’t comprehend Crash as a body of work because it flies in the face of their sheltered card-house of truths. If Haggis is to have any point at all, it means a number of things that so scare the left that they choose to demean the film rather than face a troubling reality in their own scattered ranks. What if liberals are equally capable of hate? What if minorities share some of the blame for what remains of our race problems in this country? What if there is a sin worse than bigotry?

These are the questions, among others that may trouble conservatives, posed by “Crash.” It may not deserve its prize, but its newfound detractors show only their own lack of depth and generalizations in their critiques. The film shows us the complexities of America’s racial problem cannot be explained with KnownFacts™ while the Left shows us they would rather lash out than do any thinking of their own.

Oscar's Brokeback Bigotry?

Brokeback Mountain did not win Best Picture, yet this could be a watershed moment for the so-called Gay Rights Movement.

The point I’m trying to make is as follows. An aggrieved group striving for truly equal status can never be thought to have achieved its mission until it loses, and no one cries foul. Catholics did not arrive when JFK was elected President. I would say we fully became equal on the national scene when John Kerry lost, and no one opined it was because of Americans’ suspicion of the Pope. Women and Blacks have arrived in local and state politics, because we don’t blame their losses on sex or race. In contrast, Black football coaches have a long way to go, as we consistently blame their short tenures on racism and not performance. This is the mark of true equality.

Here we arrive at Brokeback Mountain; Crash won the big prize. If the gay community in this country graciously accepts the loss as a genuine difference of opinion amongst Academy voters, they will have taken a huge step forward. In contrast, cries of homophobia or bigotry will seriously undermine their genuine efforts for justice by creating in the minds of many Americans a perception that they demand to be treated above other groups. Are we to regale every piece of gay-themed art above all other quality pieces or work? Crash is a truly remarkable movie, worthy of its own essay by a much more talented writer and analyst. I found it to be a poignant and moving original treatise on race relations, deserving of its prize in a weak year for movies. Though I have not seen Brokeback and fully leave open the idea that it may in fact have been the Best Picture of 2005, I find the tragic theme to be altogether obvious. I further trust in the voting of those whose lives are in film. Furthermore, of all communities in America, surely Hollywood cannot fairly be accused of bigotry in this matter. As George Clooney noted, it has been a leader in provoking these questions ahead of American society at large.

It is plain that no foul has occurred here past that of the potentially errant judgment of professional critics and artists. Cries of bigotry are unfounded. If the “civil rights progressives” humbly recognize this, we have taken a huge step forward towards true equality. Both sides have work to do, but it is my hope that we can use moments like these to truly judge the content of the work or candidate rather than superficial attributes they may portray. Crash, Brokeback, and the Academy have given us an opportunity. Let’s take it.


I wrote this Sunday night hoping for a step in the right direction. Sadly, we get trash like this from The Boston Globe’s Wesley Morris. Morris is one of the few black film critics at a major newspaper, and while I respect his opinion on movies, he is way off base here. But since the subject of my upcoming post on Crash and the left’s inability to appreciate its message, I’ll let you read his column and judge his bias for yourself.

WHO NEEDS RICE WHEN YOU'VE GOT RUDY?

Last week, Xander explained the growing importance of a strong Vice-President in helping a Presidental candidate win an election. In his column, Xander detailed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and how she could play a pivotal role in the 2008 election if she is selected as a running-mate by the Republican nominee. I believe that Xander is very accurate in his analysis of the importance of a Vice-President in the upcoming election; however, it appears that there may be a better option than Condoleezza Rice.

In a recent poll released by Quinnipiac University, Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was found to be the most popular politician in the nation. The poll asked voters to rate politicians on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher numbers representing more favorable opinions. Giuliani's score of 63.5 edged out Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) who scored a 59.9, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who scored a 59.7, and Condoleezza Rice who posted a 51.0. While this is meerly a poll from one area, Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Instituted stated, "Not only does Mayor Giuliani get the best ratings, but his numbers are uniform across the country." I find it even more impressive that this poll is coming out of Quinnipiac University, a very liberal institution located in "Bode Miller-ville," which traditionally leans strongly towards the left. I believe that this information shows that the Republican nominee, whomever it may be, might be better off selecting Giuliani as their running-mate rather than Ms. Rice. Then again, alot can change between now and 2008.

If you were wondering, here are some of the other notable scores:
President George W. Bush, 44.1; Vice-President Dick Cheney, 41.0; Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), 50.4; and Former North Carolina Senator (and John Kerry running-mate) John Edwards, 50.8.

*these statistics were found in the Nation section of AM New York, the little newspaper they give out on the subway each morning

News Flash: Barbra Streisand is a Journalist

Being one who is never quite satisfied with the status quo, I constantly seek out new outlets to get my news. I scan the 24-hour cable news networks, read the Washington Post, check out the BBC’s website, as well as a healthy number of domestic and foreign print media. Much of the actual “news” reported in stories does not change, but it is always interesting to see the various biases present in new reporting. Today, though, I stumbled upon a goldmine that I have the feeling could become my one stop source for all the news fit to read. This treasure trove can be found at http://www.barbrastreisand.com/. I am, of course, being very facetious when I say that. Her website serves as a perfect example as to how the vast majority of celebrities have no clue when it comes to politics. So to you celebrities out there with the mental capacity of Miss Streisand, I implore you, stick to reading scripts and keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you are talking about (or unable to use spell check).

Barb’s most recent diatribe is titled “The Importance of Balanced Power in Congress,” which sounds decent on the surface, but quickly goes south. By the end of the first paragraph, we learn that balance in Congress means, “it's critical that people elect members of the Democratic party to the House and Senate so that a new leadership can take control.” So balance to her, and many of her cronies, means having only people in power that agree with your particular viewpoint. A belief that is very healthy for a democracy by the way. Not only does she present an undemocratic view, Streisand cannot even get her point across clearly and without spelling and grammatical mistakes. She accuses an arrogant “C” student of running the country, but at least Mr. Bush attended and graduated from college and business school.

One line in particular stands out as a real gem, “In the 1970's, during the Nixon Adminstration, serious political curruption arose and the Republican leadership stepped up and took responsibilty by holding hearings and subpoening administration officials.” In ONE sentence, the reader is treated to four misspelled words. That is truly remarkable Babs, by reading your website not only am I treated to unbalanced treatment of the news, but I can use it to hone my editing skills. That is a revolutionary way to market yourself; I am blown away by your ingenuity (and amazed at your apparent stupidity).

Later on, Streisand completely gets a well-established fact wrong. “When debating Al Gore during the 2000 presidential elections, Bush spoke against nation building, yet went into Irag a year later to national build.” Let’s see here, I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, I could not find a country by the name of IRAG on the map. That aside, we’ll assume that she meant IRAQ. Anyone who has had a pulse for the past few years is well aware that the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003.

There are other inaccuracies, misspellings, and fabrications throughout the remainder of Barbra’s latest news release. As of 5:00pm EST, all mistakes remain uncorrected. You can read the entire release here: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html.

The moral of this story is that just because you have a celebrity who thinks just because you have a platform to share you views, please spare us if you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. There are plenty of people running around this country who have whacked-out views, but thankfully, most of them do not possess the platform to spread their idiocy. So Babs, the next time you decide to put out another one of your “news releases,” please take the time to use spell check and run a couple of internet searches to make sure you get your basic facts right. Better yet, why don’t you hire someone with an educated opinion to write it for you?

Below, for your enjoyment, is a list of words that Barbra Streisand misspelled in her news release:

* Irag * curruption * dictatoriship * crediblity * Adminstration* warrented* desperatly* preceedings* ouside* subpoening* responsibilty