And the hits just keep on comin’
Category: News and Politics

Didn't I just say that?  $4-a-gallon gasoline a bargain...

Is perception reality, or is reality reality?  Hmmmm, ponder that.

2:22 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Big Oil on trial... Congress must be in session

Just happened to click on MSN as my homepage and noticed a little thumbnail of a pink sign with "Big Oil = Big Profits" in big black letters.

Looks like somebody's testifying before Congress on record oil and gasoline prices.  No surprise here, really.  When Americans suddenly find a product costs more than they *think* it *should*, they bitch and moan and ask the government to investigate.  It's already begun with groceries as well, electricity was another as well as cable television, but gasoline is the darling gem of the economically challenged right now.

Congress has investigated the energy industry on a regular basis since the crisis in the 70's, being certain to check any hints of collusion, "price-gouging" and the likes.  How many times have Congress managed to present evidence of manipulated markets?

Zero. None. Nodda that show up on a Google search.

I can hear it now, from a particular few people, "But these companies are making RECORD PROFITS while we pay more at the pump!".  No, they are making record profits BECAUSE you are paying more at the pump.  If you don't like contributing to their coffers, stop driving to the corner store for your milk.  Take a walk.  Get a bike.  Telecommute to work a couple days a week.  Carpool. Stop complaining about the mileage of the gas-guzzling SUV you use to drive yourself, alone, everywhere. Buy a hybrid. Take your pick...

Let's all be honest here: nobody would give a second thought to the energy companies profit margin if they were paying what they personally believed to be a "reasonable" or "fair" price for gasoline.  But what is a "fair" price?  Is it the inflation adjusted price from 1951?  Is it what other countries are paying per gallon? Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, is it what you as a consumer are willing to pay a provider for a product in a free market?  Hmmmm...

Some numbers to consider while you ponder that last rhetorical question:

1) Big Oil profit margins generally vary between 7-10%.  By comparison, Google's advertising profit margin was 25%, Coca-Cola was 27%, McDonald's was 16% (and no one is complaining about the price of a Big Mac).

2) While we've seen several large employment sectors laying off workers in the thousands (Citigroup, automotive, airlines), Big Oil continues to employ more people, and at faster growing wage rates then the US average.

3) All those average Joe's and Jane's who were smart enough to invest in the energy companies are reaping the rewards in their 401(k) and retirement accounts.

4) In the past 8 years (since W took office), domestic supply has dropped, crude oil imports have increased, and (surprise, surprise!) US consumption has increased.  Demand is up, supply is down.  I swear, someone once told me there was a correlation there.

5) Remember in 2006 when that Exxon executive was given his $400 million parting gift from the share holders? Ignore the fact that this was given to him freely by the board as a thank you for his business practices helping them net record profits and sharing the wealth amongst the companies share holders. What if that $400 million had gone towards reducing the cost of gasoline, on a per gallon basis?  We'd shave 12 cents off a gallon of gas, for one year only.  If all the executives worked for free, we'd save less than that even.  Would anyone stop complaining about the price of gas if it dropped a whole 25 cents?

UPDATE

And now certain Democratic members of Congress are in support of nationalizing the oil industry here in the US.  Wonderful idea.  How'd that work out for Iran and Venezuela?

2:34 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The 2 cents of 50 cent
Category: News and Politics

Cuz we Americans just love to kill us some important black people, don't we?

I really hope people look up to this guy because of his six pack or his bling, as opposed to his intelligence and unique grasp of reality.

Strike that.  I hope nobody idolizes this tool.

5:43 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Today’s Lesson: How to label the middle-class "stupid"
Category: News and Politics

This past month, Congress created, and the President signed into law, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.  The bill was created to try and curtail the "mortgage crisis" incurred by those individuals and families who decided they could afford more house than, well, than they could actually afford.  The "interest-only" mortgages hit people of all income levels, but guess who's seen as the primary beneficiaries of the new law?

The "wealthy".  Yes, yet another law that was purportedly supported by Bush and created "for the rich".  Here's Jeff Schnepper's take on the situation:

"If you're smart enough to get a $2 million loan, you should be smart enough to pay it back, or eat the tax when your debt is forgiven."

Oh.

So, what if you're "smart enough" to get a $200,000 loan?  Does that mean you should be smart enough to pay it back too?  And if you can't, doesn't the logical conclusion to that train of thought mean... you're the opposite of smart?  Dare I say... stupid?

Schnepper's reasoning would have the amount capped so the "wealthy" would be stuck eating the taxes while the "poor" and "middle class" would get the relief.  It's a populist platform: do what's good for the greatest majority of people, but leave out the evil (rich) or extreme ones.  You'd think he were running for office.

If the underlying concern here is we shouldn't be bailing out, on the tax-payer dole, anyone who took out a loan for anything they couldn't afford to pay back (plasma TVs, cars, homes, or luxury ocean liners), why do we punish one group more than the others?  Because it's popular to do so.  It's been popular to ridicule the "rich" and the "wealthy" for decades, creating this illusion of a class war.

Two facts worth finding out:

1) Wage earners in this country are typically divided into either quartiles or quintiles.  Of the people whom at one point occupy the lowest earning quintile, how many of them do you think rise to the top quintile?  I know the answer, but it's a shame most others don't.

2) Using those same quintile brackets, where do you think most people in need of mortgage relief currently reside?  I'm going to do a little research and, if I find the answer, post it here.  Anyone want to bet that it's not the wealthy millionaires that took out mortgages for more than they could afford?

6:24 AM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Your Health: Universal Care or Coverage?
Category: News and Politics

Take your pick, because you only really get one.

We returned from holiday this past Saturday and stopped by the post office to pick up our held mail.  Huge packet... lots of bills, some spam (is junk snail mail called spam?)... and my new issue of The Objective Standard.  I was looking forward to this issue for three reasons; each of the articles.

One article in particular caught my interest, seeing as my wife will one day be a physician.  The title was Moral Healthcare vs. "Universal" Healthcare.  It was a solid article that briefly tackled the history of government interference in the healthcare industry and the problems it's caused, the root ideology behind the problems (entitlement) and interestingly a useful argument that proves "Universal Healthcare" is actually "Universal Coverage", not care.  The authors took great care to point out, citing numerous references, that care and coverage are not one and the same.  In fact, in a single-payer system, they are actually antithetical.

I'll let you read the article to discover why that is.  This one was made freely available to the public, so do be sure to peruse at your leisure.  And if you happen to like that article (and happen to agree with the authors), consider ordering a subscription to the periodical.  I've enjoyed every copy thus far.

8:26 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

How’s that "debate" goin?
Category: News and Politics

Al Gore, the world's most popular proponent of Global Warming being caused by greenhouse gas emissions, once (if not several times) told Keith Olbermann that "the debate is over".  He argued that the "peer-reviewed" science articles concluded that greenhouse gases were to blame for all of this warming we see today.  When asked about other scientists across the globe, 3 in particular, who cited scientific evidence to the contrary, he swept it under the rug claiming you could always find some biased, paid party to uphold the stance of "big oil".

So what does he have to say for this now?  Three separate American universities, peer-reviewed science, concludes the current trend of global warming is due to something other than greenhouse gas emissions.

Hmmm...

7:29 AM - 4 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Closer to Sage than Forest...
Category: News and Politics

It's been awhile since my last posting, but I read this recent editorial report by Steven Milloy at Fox News and thought it was worth sharing, mostly because it mirrors my own thoughts about the "green advocates".  If the loudest alarmists aren't willing to substantially change their own lifestyles, to lead by example, then why should we take them seriously when they ask us to dramatically alter our means of living?

I'm often written off by family, friends, and fellow bloggers as a "global warming denier", but that's not true in the slightest.  The National Center for Policy Analysis, a think tank that could best be described (honestly anyways) as a classic liberal, capitalist group, sums up my thoughts nicely.  In essence, they think private companies and motivated individuals can better achieve goals than a government can.  They assembled what they refer to as a Global Warming Primer, a collection of basic facts in regards to global temperature, certain greenhouse gases and their effects, etc.

When I make an argument about the effects of global warming, much of my information stems from these very basic facts.  Yes, the earth has seen a warming trend over the last 250 years, with a noticeable spike in the last 50 years seemingly following an exponential curve (for a total of less than 1 degree celsius).  Yes, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", an element of the atmosphere that helps to regulate temperature on earth.

But I always ask my opponents to be as honest with me as I am with them... and that rarely happens.  Carbon dioxide concentrations have been higher in the distant past than they are today, as have temperatures on this planet.  In fact, if you look at the historical temperature records, we see a repeating cycle of a sudden spike in temperature roughly every 100,000 years, followed by a steady decline.

And for all the arguing over CO2 emissions as the primary cause for concern, I point out that CO2 isn't even the most potent greenhouse gas.  Water vapor and Methane both are "stronger" greenhouse gases than CO2.  Water vapor makes up nearly 95% of the atmosphere while CO2 comprises only 3.5%.  A former UN IPCC report even cited methane flatulence from livestock as a greater contributor to greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined.  Yet we never hear about attempts to decrease the levels of methane or water vapor to bring the greenhouse effect under control.

Knowing all of this, why do the global warming alarmists still recommend reducing our CO2 emissions and why are fossil fuels the primary target?

8:07 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Taking one for the BCS
Category: Sports

The ranting is over, time to settle back down to reality.

At the start of this season, midway through the Michigan vs. Appalaichan State game in fact, my brother Kevin (a Michigan fan) received a call from his roommate (a Buckeye fan).  The roomie was making sure to get his licks in for the, at the time, 5 ranked Wolverines being down to a Div I-AA opponent.  Then, as always happens between Buckeye and Wolverine fans, the bet ensued:

"$50?  You wanna bet $50 that OSU beats Michigan this year?"

My brother looked over at me, telling me his roomie was the one wanting to place the bet.  I looked him square in the eye and said, "I'll take Michigan in that one too."

His jaw dropped for about a second.  My brother Patrick, another Buckeye faithful, did a double take.  I saw a need to explain.  We had just lost our starting quarterback, the Heismann winner, of 3 years.  Our biggest playmaker, best wide receiver, and lead running back, respectively, all left for the NFL draft.  We lost offensive linemen and the year before that we had to rely on an incredibly young defense after we lost all our defensive stars to the Sunday ticket.  Pre-season rankings had Michigan or Penn State as the favorites to win the Big 10.  Wisconsin was supposed to have an amazing team this year as well.  The way I figured it, the Buckeyes would be lucky to be 9-3 at the end of this season.  Not a rebuilding year, but nothing stellar.

Then the strangest thing happened.  For about 9 straight weeks in fact.  And low-and-behold, the Buckeyes were ranked first in the country heading into an at-home showdown against an unranked conference opponent.

Deja vu.

I'm disappointed, yes, but I am somewhat relieved.  Let's be honest with ourselves: Ohio State is a fantastic football team, but they weren't the best overall team in the nation.  I've watched many a team play this year and even with the chaotic rule that anything can happen on any given Saturday, I still don't think we could stand a chance against an offense like Oregon's or the balance of an LSU team.

In a way, it's a bit of a relief.  Can you imagine the grief the program would take if it had remained undefeated, made it to the national title game for the second straight year, and been humiliated again?  Not to say that it would happen, but it had a high probability.  As an honest college football fan, I would much prefer to see the top two teams in the nation play for the national title, not the two teams with the best win-loss record with "style points" and "strength of schedule" as statistically calculated factors in a spreadsheet.

So maybe this is a blessing in disguise for all of college football.  A team we knew wasn't really the best overall team in the nation finally proves that it belongs in a BCS bowl as a power-house and, in my opinion, a conference champion in one week... but some other school gets to bicker about how it should be 1 or 2 in the polls.

And God help us all if LSU, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia and Missouri lose another game.  I'll take that as a sign that the Almighty himself has smote the BCS system...

...and wears scarlet & gray on Saturdays.

4:19 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Looking for changes in all the wrong places
Current mood: angry
Category: Sports

I can't imagine there isn't a Buckeye fan in the land that isn't reflecting my current mood.  You're the 1 ranked team in college football.  You have the 1 rated defense in the country.  You've been able to skate through your season thus far because the teams you have played have been only marginal opponents, at best.  And you lose to an unranked conference rival.

That's 2007, baby.  It's not that I'm entirely surprised.  In a season that has seen the a top-five ranked team lose, not only to difficult teams but also to unranked (or sub-division) opponents, this had to be expected.  Right?  Well, no, not entirely.

It's one thing to see your team be beaten in an all-out match of brute strength, where the players leave everything on the field and one player or one coach's call makes the difference in an otherwise close ball game.  This matchup didn't even qualify.  We've seen it with other "traditional" football programs this season: put their hard-hitting defense against the spread offense and watch the coaching staff scratch their heads while the players miss assignments.  But it's become so typical over the past couple years that it makes you wonder why no one has been able to come up with a decent strategy to counter it.  And that's what's most disappointing about this upset.

The loss lies squarely on the shoulders of the OSU coaching staff, who didn't come in with a game plan that could account for this offense.  The defensive pass protection schemes, not the players, were a huge let down.  They shuffled between man coverage and zone so often that there didn't seem to be a reason for either being used.  When Illinois scored their last touchdown on a wide-open pass down the middle, you couldn't help but notice that the scheme didn't have a free safety.  Against a quaterback who's known for his ability to run the option or scramble for yards, you never saw a shadow from the linebackers.  I can't count the number of times a blitz resulted in 3 guys behind the quarterback instead of containing him.

As huge a blow this was to the Buckeye faithful, I feel most for the players on that team.  In a season where, arguably, we were preseason favorites for a 9-3 record, this team has pulled some miraculous talent from it's depths.  People who were never heard of from last year's team contributed as if they were seasoned veterans.  And Tressel and his staff, again, let us all down.  We saw it against Florida last year, we saw it today against Illinois.  The sad part is, you can see it at the beginning of a game, we all can, and the coaching staff never seems to make adjustments.  I'm all for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, but the rhetoric becomes a bit antiquated when the rest of the college football world is leaving you behind.

4:02 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Bad case of Deja Vu...
Category: News and Politics

I swear I've heard this before.  Israel concedes some of it's territory to the Palestinian government and all they ask for in return is a measily promise of peace for their citizens...

...soon followed by raining rockets.

I remember saying, when Israel agreed to uproot their citizens from their cultivated lands in the Gaza Strip, that not only would this NOT lead to peace with the Palestinians, it would lead to more blood shed and further placations until Israel as a state ceases to exist.  I was right then, I see no reason why I should be wrong this time.

You have to love the optimism of Olmert, even it is unrealistic:

"Palestinians too "will have to deal with the need to concede part of their dreams in order to build with us a realistic, if not ideal, if not perfect" future of peace and security, he added."

Assuming this agreement is ratified by the powers-that-be, how long before we see rockets being launched from the Palestinian side of Jerusalem on the citizens of Israel?  Does anyone think there exists a Palestinian leader with the cajones to crack down on the terrorist attacks in light of appeasing measures by the Israelis?  The current population of Palestine has made it perfectly clear based on not only their voting record, but their cultural norms and children's television shows: there is no peace with the Jews and Israel.  They maintain an all-or-nothing approach... and why should they compromise?  In the past 40 years of violence, Israel is the only side of this conflict who has appeased their opponents.  Palestinians have no incentive to stop their attacks because their attacks are working exactly as they had planned.

Do we reach a point where we have to ask ourselves: what's the point of even talking to people like that?

10:42 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment