Hydrablog

Open Mouth Insert Race Card

2009-07-24T17:12:00.002-05:00

So a black man gets caught breaking into his own house. When the police respond to a report of a break in in progress the black man berates the police and creates a bizarre scene by screaming to by standers that they are witnessing the way black people get mistreated in this country. Police then arrest the man, not for breaking and entering seeing as it was his own house, but for disorderly conduct seeing as his behaviour in the face of legitimate authority was outrageous.

So this is the water our cool-headed and intellectually gifted president felt he should wade into while desperately trying to save a floundering cornerstone of his legacy. Wow. And I though he looked silly when he walked into the side of Air Force One.

Here's the story, kids. A country that just elected a black president named Obama while currently fighting two wars because of an Osama is NOT a bigoted country. Period. Barak may have been well intentioned, but he could not have bungled this worse. And the "it's so tough to be black" line is getting really old. This country is wide open and full of opportunity for anyone willing to make even the slightest effort. And I'm glad we aren't afraid to question people for breaking into homes even if they do happen to be black.

A Famous Man Once Said...

2009-07-11T17:15:00.002-05:00

Oh sure, I could dazzle you with the academic research necessary to provide you with who...but this is a blue color blog and we don't go in for that fancy researching nonsense or even proper spelling. So let me just say that I once read that the downfall of Democracy will be the fact that it allows the people to vote themselves limitless benefits from limited stores of wealth. This memory came back to me as I read the linked piece. It states that the current autocracies are doing a much better job fiscally than the democracies and have, in fact, turned the democracies into debtor nations. Clearly this is not because they are more productive, just less profligate.

There is no better system for unleashing the potential of the individual than democracy. Not because of democracy itself, but because democracy allows for the least amount of interference and coercion from government. Even though a democracy can vote for less freedoms, they will rarely rise to the level of an autocratic state. That being said, the democracies are not being outproduced by the autocratic states. The democracies (even European ones) are still more productive. However, the autocratic states have the money and the democracies don't. Why? Because the democracies shell out huge amounts of money for expensive perks for their people (kind of like GM did) while the autocrats do not. A six figure bread winner who spends seven figures on fun and good times is just as broke as the most hopeless bum. It is pretty sad to watch the current batch of "leaders" find more and more expensive things to give to the people even though they have no money to buy them with. But it isn't surprising...because the people get what they want.

Kennedy Tries to Outdo His Own Stereotype

2009-06-07T09:37:00.003-05:00

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has begun to circulate his new health bill, and its going to be a whopping bill for businesses.

Calling the bill, "American Health Choices Act" or AHCA, which is apparently based on NOT giving employer's any choices as it will force employer's to provide health insurance to employees or "face a penalty."

Why is this a bad idea? It is terrible that people don't have insurance, most personal bankruptcies come from medical care, and, let's face it, the medical/health insurance/prescription drug is busted so why not be support a bill that will increase the coverage of working Americans by putting the burden at the hub of working America, the employer?

Mostly because it won't work (more on that later). But also because the one question I've never heard answered well is, "Why?" Sure the job is place where lots of people go, so if you want to cover a lot of people quickly, that's a great place to start. But again, why is it the employer's responsibility? Ostensibly, the employer pays a wage for work. What the employee does with that money is his or her own decision. If there's not enough wage to cover all that the employee needs then the employee is faced with a hard decision, seek a higher wage or make sacrifices. And you know what? The employer faces hard decisions too. No company can do everything they want with the revenue it earns. So it too must face hard decisions. Hard decisions are OK, that's a part of life. Forcing employer's to bear the health-care burden of their employees using the sole logic of "because they're there" is not only wrong its dumb. Kennedy's proposal just hides the cost of the bill. We'll all wind up paying for it in higher prices or lost jobs, but it will be opaque.

Sure, proponents will use the massive profits of the big companies to show that they can afford health care coverage. Unfortunately, those companies already provide heath insurance for their employees. In order to be effective this bill will have to target small businesses, those same small businesses that struggle with payroll and managing cost's to keep prices competitive. Forcing this on small businesses will absolutely kill them. So this bill will never pass unless it exempts small business.

This inherent flaw will not dawn on anyone in the Legislative branch. So this bill will pass with an exemption for small businesses and nothing will change, and the waste goes on.

Since my daddy raised me to never criticize without a solution, here's mine. Rather than fine/jail/sue the employer into solving a problem of the employee, use the sound base fact that lots of people congregate around work. Allow employee's to ban together to get the best price for their health insurance. Then allow multiple work sites to ban together to get even better pricing. Rather than change the law to force employers to foot the bill, change the law to allow people to use the power of bulk shopping to gain affordable access to health insurance.

But again, can our reader out there (Hi Ma) explain why this is a problem for the employer to solve by force of law?

Gosh, no, really?

2009-03-05T19:45:00.003-05:00

So, Obama, the political equivalent of a fresh breeze, is starting to smell a little stale. Seeing as UBlo writes all my comments in his diary then spends his days looking for inconsistencies let me state something clearly: Obama seems like a decent enough guy but he is an absolute run of the mill leader. We are seeing nothing unique beyond the superficial fact of skin color. Obama lied on the stump and he'll lie from behind the safety of his teleprompter. Of course he'll lie, he's a politician and that's what they do. If you find yourself staring starry-eyed at this guy because you've always been curious about what "worship" means, well you might as well try it on your neighbor or a farm animal you craft out of play-do. Because they would be just as worthy.

Less Than Zero

2009-02-11T18:31:00.004-05:00

So a woman goes into an abortion clinic and delivers a baby who is then killed. And the consequences? Well, the doctor may have his license revoked and will need another doctor around when he does this kind of thing in the future. Anyone else feeling a little sick? How would this story end if it started...So a woman goes into a mall and delivers a baby who is then killed. I'm thinking it wouldn't end with just having the mall manager suffer a shadow day with another more responsible mall manager. But then what do I know? I actually think human beings count for something...even if they're unfortunate enough to be caught in a Florida doctor's office.

Two Americas

2009-02-02T19:00:00.003-05:00

It looks like Loverboy Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There's the special rights America where paying taxes and generally following rules or laws is optional and then there's the one populated by the unfortunates who aren't politically connected. Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle are fortunate enough to live on the right side of the tracks with Mr. Obama. It seems choices that would land many of us in jail don't even give our president pause when stocking his political fishpond. Is it closed minded to expect our public servants to actually pay their taxes or follow the rules and burdens that they impose on those of us in the second America? Apparently so. There was a time not too long ago, when these types of "scandals" brought on bold typed indignation from our journalistic protectors. Maybe they're all too busy these days looking for someone who still wants to pay to read what they write, or maybe they're just happy to see their friends calling the shots, once again, in their America.

Whoops

2009-01-31T10:05:00.002-05:00

Wait a minute...I thought everyone just wanted to be loved. Isn't that one of the core liberal beliefs that keeps criminals on the street and disruptive students in the classroom? Well now Obama is applying this silly notion to world diplomacy and the result it hardly surprising. It blew up in his face. Obama's touching offer to give Iran a back rub and let bygones be bygones is being dragged through the streets of Tehran in humiliation. It is being used by the leaders of Iran to argue that we are weak. I recall being warned that this would happen for the past eight years. It looks like unpopular decisions can often be the right ones. Ever try being a parent?

My Vote for Luckiest Guy...

2009-01-29T00:21:00.004-05:00

Goes to Pittsburgh Steeler Fullback, Sean McHugh. Don't know much about the guy but this.

He was cut by the Detroit Lions right before the season started. Now think back to that day. You've just spent three seasons with the Lions and right before the season starts they cut you. You HAVE to be thinking about your career at that point, right. I mean, you were just told that you're not good enough for the worst team in the league. If the absolute dregs of the NFL don't want you, maybe its time to dust off the ol' college degree. I suppose the only consolation is that Matt Millen may have been the NFL's all time worst GM. But still...

Then, a few days later the Pittsburgh Steelers give you a call.

So instead of playing for the first 0-16 team in NFL history, you're in Tampa Bay playing for the Lombardi trophy. Talk about making the leap from worst to first.

Ain't life grand?

Ahhh, the Bush Legacy Continues

2009-01-26T23:14:00.004-05:00

So just when things were looking good for fans of small government, we get a reminder that America's biggest fan of big government left us with a parting gift.

The Supreme Court today handed down a unanimous decision stating that police officers have the unfettered right to search you at any time, for any reason, and what they find can be used against you as evidence.

That's right folks, 9-0 against the Fourth Amendment. At some point, I'm going to have to accept that I'm just not very bright because I just don't see how that ruling is possible. Here's the Fourth Amendment again,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe I suffer from some extreme form of obtuseitude, but I just don't see anywhere in the Fourth that backs up the Justices opinion. Maybe the H-Blog's reader (Hi Ma!) can shed some light on this for me.

Say's Ginsburg,

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public."

But what is the standard of "reasonable suspicion?" If a police officer is wrong three times in a row, does he lose his "reasonable suspicion" license? What if they don't find a gun but find the Mary J? What's the check on this power?

But more importantly, I thought Roberts and Alito were supposed to be "strict constructionists." How, how can anyone viewed as a "strict constructionist" stand by and allow this ruling to go forward? Forget Scalia. He's everybit a Constitutional purist as Ginsburg. He just has better rhetoric.

Nope, Robert and Alito are relativists in the same vein as W. Codes are good when they're easy, and bad when they ask us do things we don't agree with. Moral relativism is the mantra of the Bush years, and his court pics reflect that position exaclty.

Is "Conservative" the new "Gay?"

2009-01-26T22:48:00.004-05:00

I was going to go with "Is Obama the true Conservative President?" But then I realized that after eight years of Bush, the word "Conservative" like "gay" now means something much different than it did before.

Under Bush, the whole notion of a state deciding what's best for that state just got in the way of his"conservative" party's big government dreams.

Now Obama lets loose with this little gem. He's going to reverse the W doctrine and let states dictate their own emission and fuel efficiency standards. I have no idea what the economic, environmental, employment or any other ramification of this action is, good or bad. But I do know that I like the idea of letting states figure this out for themselves, and I especially like the idea of following each state as they experiment with it and trying to then figure out what's best for my state of Colorado. I recall something from civics class about having each state find its own path though difficult decisions being part of some kind of "Grand Experiment."*

Seems like that used to be the "conservative" view. But now its coming from what the knee-jerk media calls the "Liberal" President.

So nothing about W fit the old definition of "conservative" and the first days of the "liberal" president have been about restoring "conservative" ideals. So since "conservative" clearly doesn't mean what it used to mean, what does it mean now? And is it dirty?

I'm not sure what's going on, but so far, I'm having a gay old time.

*A free one-year subscription to Hydrablog if you can find the reference somewhere.

Like Fonzie I Was Wuhwoo. I Was Wroooough. I Was Woughroooggh.

2009-01-25T17:10:00.004-05:00

OK, so I voted for Barr, and thus "Barred" myself from playing with all the other kids in the Obama/McCain debate.

My main beef with Obama was that he wasn't taking a hard enough stand for the my America. My democratic friends all told me, "He can't take a hard stand for these issues because he'll look soft on terrorism, but he'll restore the 4th Amendment, finally do away with legalized torture, shut down Gitmo, and restore openness to the government." But he has to present a certain image to win. Sort of like when Clinton went back to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of Ricky Ray Rector.

"Maybe," said I, but I'm tired of voting for what I hope someone will become, rather than what they are. It's generally a bad bet. Leaders should lead, right?

Well, looks like I'm losing that bet.

In the first week of his Presidency, Obama has,

Made the move to close Gitmo and international "black site" prisons. From the article, Obama said,

The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,

And,

We are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.

Then the cherry on top,

We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms.

Doesn't he know from Bush/Cheney that morals are on a sliding scale of "at least its better than Saddam," and that we should all be ready and willing to suspend core American values because Bush said we're supposed to be scared? Where's Obama been? For eight years we were lead to believe that there is no core morality, no resolute American values. Now Obama's saying that it right to abide by a code of conduct when its hard? My mind's spinning. In one week we moved from morals are for losers, to morals are for victors.

I guess its hard to have core value and stick to them, but I'm game.

But surely the American value of knowing what the government is doing and questioning it is still a quiant, outdated ideal for a democracy. Right?

Let's check on Obama, in his first, week says.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a
clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.
The Government should not keep information confidential merely
because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because
of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never
be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of
Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed
to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive
branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit
of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of
the public.

Then, and it was hard to read this though my tears of joy,

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

Holy Smokes! Openess over secrecy? What kind of crazy radical thinks in order for democracy to prosper, the people have to have access to what's going on? Not only that, but that it's better to go ahead and inform the public, rather than making them jump thorugh hoops.

Yes it's been a week. And sure, some of those released will do bad things, but our prisions have been releasing people who have then done bad things for over 200 years, and we're doing ok. And yes, none of what he wrote above's been tested in action. Its certainly easy to say things, and harder to then do them. But I'll take these statements over what I've been hearing for the last eight all day long.

Frankly, this is much better than I anticipated. To all my friends that said this would happen, you were right. I hope it stays that way.

Stalin Still Cares!

2009-01-24T17:53:00.003-05:00

Caroline Kennedy dropped out of the running for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's (SOSHRC) vacant Senate seat.

Article says,

Caroline Kennedy withdrew her Senate bid because of a personal matter unrelated to her ill uncle, rejecting the governor's attempt to get her to reconsider, a person who worked closely with her said Thursday.

But we all know that the "personal matter" was the Bright Light of Justice cast by Hydrablog's own Stalin Malone in this post. It was no coincience that Mrs Kennedy dropped out three short days after Mr Malone posted his story. No one, not even the Kennedy clan, want's to be responsible for the destruction of the naive optimism aobut our nation's politics that Mr Malone personifies.

In a world where little makes sense anymore, its nice to know that the passive aggressive tactic of "go ahead, see if I care" still works. I think "Sell away David, I've stopped caring" is officially this generation's "Go ahead, make my day!"

So thank you Mr Malone. Thank you for stopping Mrs Kennedy from being a Senator. Thank you for still caring. Thank you for finally taking a stand against political lightweights after decades of supporting the likes of Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin. But mostly, thank you for being you.

Laugh Until it Hurts

2009-01-19T18:28:00.006-05:00

When this stammering intellectual lightweight becomes the next senator from New York it will no longer be possible to maintain the absurdity that politics is a serious pursuit. Granted, if a sponge that had once been used by a Kennedy to clean up a crime scene ran for office Democrats would be obligated to support it, but you'd think there would be enough grown ups in New York to stop this silliness. Either we've reached the point where absurdity is so common it can no longer be considered absurd or everyone who gets it has just stopped caring. Its too bad for Blago that he didn't realize cash is not the currency used to sell senate seats, David Paterson knows its family connections. Sell away David, I've stopped caring.

The Last Man in Europe?

2009-01-03T14:51:00.004-05:00

Populism of the left and the right is identical to the way middle school society functions. Everyone working tirelessly just to fit in. Just to be liked and accepted. You say whatever you have to, believe whatever you have to just to avoid being laughed at by everyone else. Which is not to say that no one believes the party line, but they are the minority. In any movement the majority are just there to fit in. Listening to one of them try to explain why they believe what they believe is often a painful experience. Like watching a kitten drown. Terribly sad. But belief, from a practical point of view, is about quantity and not quality. The opposite of how it should it be. Which is why a man like Vaclav Klaus is so refreshing. There was always that one kid who went his own way, not just to be different (the flip side of the same coin as conformity), but because he saw a better way and refused to let the ignorance of the crowd be his master. Vaclav refuses to be controlled by the tyranny of the European in crowd. He refuses to be bullied by them and their only claim to authority, "but we ALL believe this".

May 2009 be a very good year for Vaclav Klaus.

New Year 2009

2009-01-01T15:26:00.003-05:00

Its the first day of 2009 and let me report that Hydrablog is not yet defunct. Our silence has simply served to build anticipation. So I hope both our readers will take solace in knowing that 2009 will provide more wit and wisdom from the Hydrablog family.

Now get in there and hit somebody.

Extra Extra Read All About It

2008-09-28T10:08:00.003-05:00

I know this often comes as a shock to learned society, but the people who bring you your news actually have opinions. And these opinions, when strong enough, become causes. And once they are a cause what gets printed (or broadcast) is propaganda. The Chinese recently reported in their papers a successful space launch. And they were so excited about this that they reported it before it happened. You see, the success of the communist government as a cause for communists and so propaganda is all they can speak.

It is very tempting to consider communists a special subset of humanity and to shake our heads and pity those poor souls forced to live in a society constructed on deception. But know this: the cancer is not contained. Whenever strong views and influence converge you will get propaganda. And just so we are clear, "propaganda" is a polite word for "lie". Even though it is a lie sprinkled with a noticeable dose of truth. There are and have been many issues that our own esteemed press has felt very strongly about. And the result is always the same, the water of information that they serve you becomes more and more cloudy until the concoction threatens the health of your mind.

Russia Invades Georgia...

2008-08-25T21:01:00.002-05:00

And Europe stands ready to face yet another serious crisis.

Canary Row

2008-07-19T09:53:00.003-05:00

“Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. "

Sarandon v. Baldwin and why I'll vote for Obama

2008-07-01T12:13:00.003-05:00

You know its election season when celebrities start making threats to leave the country if the guy they don't like wins.

Susan Sarandon says she'll split if McCain wins. Canada or Italy she says. Funny, I think its the debate most Honeymooners have. "Canada, Italy? Canada, Italy? Canadaaaa, Italy? Blast, why did they have to make those two countries so similar?"

Stephen Baldwin (can we really call him a "celebrity?") says he'll split if Obama wins. Maybe he'll drive the "Lords Lounge."

Anyway, Mr Obama is the clear winner here. He gets another check in the "Reasons To Vote For Obama" box.

Obamaphobic

2008-06-21T11:03:00.004-05:00

Now that Obama leads McCain by a gazillion points (or if you're a sticker for numbers, 15 points), the hocus focus is now on Obama.

Again, as we've stressed before on the H-Blog, while Presidential hopefuls promise everything, a President can only deliver on some things (it's all in that pesky US Constitution that W vowed to ~~destroy~~ uphold). And we here at the H-Blog believe that voters should focus on the things that a President can actually do, now what he (yup, no longer "he or she") can deliver.

Speaking of, how does President Obama (get used to it Stalin) view the importance of the Bill-o-Rights? The House caved on it and voted to retroactively protect those telecommunications firms that broke the law and spied on US citizens. Basically, if the President says its OK to break the law and ignore the Constitution, then it is. Well, as long as the paperwork is all in order.

The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

Neat-o powers. But maybe I missed "The President is above the Constitution and can deem others to be so as well" in civics class. Must have come during Senior Skip Day.

Now, while Obama can promise to give you health care (he can't) he can uphold and protect the Constitution. So what's his take? Oh and remember, the new provisions greatly expand the Presidents powers. You take it from here.

Ready?

If you guessed, he'll take it but but do so with a firm pledge that

as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.

Then you win. Except that you lose.

PS. Want to go for double or nothing that nothing changes with this power under an Obama Presidency?

China Syndrome

2008-06-10T11:56:00.003-05:00

OK Global Geopolitics Geeks (that's right I'm addressing the G3 posse) here's your fix. Todays topic? China.

Before everyone anoints them the new Superpower, riddle me this. What's China's path to Superpowerdomehood? And here are the rules.

1. China's currency, the renmimbi is pegged to the dollar. This gives them a tremendous edge in production cost, especially when exporting to the worlds largest consumer nation (that us).

2. China growth depends on energy, and more specifically gas, and more specifically, cheap gas. Can't grow without it. As all those hundreds of billions of people start movin' on up, or really, before they can even imagine that deluxe apartment in the sky, they need need cheap go-go juice.

3. The current generation of Chinese have never, ever experienced an economic downturn. All up, and big ups at that.

4. 1.3 BILLION people makes for an amazing market that everyone wants to play in. And when times are great, 1.3 billion people are a great form of leverage for growth, and it makes you the absolute belle of the ball. But when things go bad, that's 1.3billion people to go bad with, and gives you leprosy. Leverage cuts both ways folks.

So now, we know that the Chinese have a great demand for oil which is driving up price. But what's also driving up the price of oil is the fact that its priced in dollars, and has the dollar falls, the price of oil goes up.

And now you have China's knot.

Increasing gas prices will kill their growth. They must have cheap gas. Killing the renmimbi peg will give relief from rising gas prices, but losing the peg kills the production cost edge that drives the economy.

If China keeps the peg it must spend huge chunks of its dollar reserve to prop up our dollar, while also spending huge amounts to subsidize its citizens cost of gas. China does have a massive cash reserve (about 1.2 trillion, most of it dollar backed) but a double whammy like the one above can whip through it, fast. Not only that, but if the reserve looks low enough, speculators will attack the peg, forcing China to again dip into its reserves to protect it, or let it go. If it then fails, China will find itself having blown through hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason, maybe they can call Bush and start a support group.

If it drops the peg without defending, China's production costs will immediately rise. Cheaper gas, but mores expensive goods. That's a huge risk. Again, 1.3 billion people have hopes of improving their lot in life. If the economy takes a dive, or potentially even pauses, then that's 1.3 billion ticked off citizens. How does any government manage that? While no expert, my brief rundown of revolutions leads me to think that most of them are economically based. When living conditions fall low enough, the people revolt. Now that China's citizens have tasted growth and success, how much of a shock does it take to start splintering the country? Even without that dire prediction, how do you pull 1.3 billion people out of a recession?

Either path has looks like a loser.

The dollar's fall is big news here, but it must be giving China night sweats.

PS. Did you know that the dollar is now worth .97 Canadian dollars. Are things really so bad that we have the cute little currency in North America?

Oh well, I suppose the good news after eight years of disastrous republican economic policy is that it may slow China down.

If W's Right, I don't wanna be wrong

2008-05-21T20:27:00.004-05:00

President Bush vetoed the new farm bill.

I'm officially giving our President an "atta boy."

Unfortunately it looks like there's enough ~~graft~~ votes in congress to override it.

UPDATE: Looks like America's most inept party can't even do an overwhelming veto right. Looks like congress sent W an incomplete bill, meaning Congress can't override his veto with the correct bill because W didn't review it. Ineptitude thy name is Democrat. Anyway, while the bill will still most likely pass, there's is now time to hope that the White House can kill this thing.

W's Prom Nightmare

2008-05-19T18:49:00.003-05:00

So President Bush put out on prom night, but the Sheik stood him up on pumping more oil. Poor, poor, W. At least he wasn't wearing a tux from the Miami Vice collection.

But here's where I'm confused. The Saudi's say that there's not enough demand to warrant oil increases, and that they are meeting the needs of their customers.

But W says he understands that the Saudi's can't increase production because he,

acknowledges that raising output is difficult because the demand for oil—particularly from China and India—is stretching supplies.

But if there's not enough demand to warrant an increase, how are China and India sucking up all the supply? Doesn't the increased demand from China and India constitute "more demand?"

Next, aren't we customers? What about the need to meet our demand? My understanding is that the US is the largest oil consumer on the planet. If our President is asking "please sir, may I have some more?" isn't that a customer asking for more?

Here's my take. On the first point, the President, after running on a platform that included the message that he would "jawbone" the Saudi's into more production as President way back when oil was at $28/barrel, he blew it. So he was looking for cover and the Saudi's just declined to give him any. Maybe W's a sloppy kisser?

On the second, it shows why its a bad idea to have the President insert himself into an economic issue. Saudi's "customer's" are the oil importers/refiners/distributors etc, not us. Exxon and the gang are doing fine, and since we're still buying gas, so are we. It's beneath the President to beg for more oil. Let the market figure it out.

Andrew Sullivan On My Mind

2008-05-17T20:36:00.004-05:00

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog, I came across this entry about an initiative in Colorado put forth by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Constitution to state that,

The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

In the post, Mr Sullivan attacks the initiative saying,

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?

Normally I find Mr Sullivan to be very bright and reasonable. And I also get that the very nature of a blog is "real time" so ideas and sentences don't always match up (I can vouch for this personally, every so often I'll reread posts and think, "That's not at all what I was trying to say), so I'm inclined to work with Mr Sullivan here.

However, I humbly submit that I would like to die of natural causes, and I also like having my rights as a person. I'm not really sure why Mr Sullivan holds these ideas as mutually exclusive. There are many ways to debate the merits of this particular bill, but Mr Sullivan badly misses the mark here. I think we can all agree that Mr Sullivan is right, many fetuses die in the womb, no one argues otherwise. I believe this bill is an attempt to stop the artificial ending of a life in the womb. Just like many people die of natural causes everyday, but we still have a law against murder. No one shrugs and says, "Look, people die of natural causes everyday, so a law against murder is just silly. Ha ha, silly people trying to save lives." Not only is his argument bad, it's also aimed at nothing.

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

2008-05-16T12:42:00.003-05:00

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.
"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.
MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.
And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.
And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...