Senin, 05 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


When You Scoff At Newt’s $2.50 Gas Promise, You Scoff at History.

Posted: 04 Mar 2012 01:14 PM PST

Newt Gingrich has caught quite a bit of heat for his claim that he would, as President, help get the price of gas down to $2.50. His plan is pretty simple. He wants to increase domestic drilling, begin construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and take a giant machete to the EPA’s job-killing, price-increasing regulations on the production of domestic energy. But even those simple steps have drawn little but dismissive derision from the bureacratic class and prominent Democrats. Mitt Romney, favorite candidate of the professional Republicans, jumped on Newt’s plan with a barely-disguised scoff and used many of the same arguments. He said he would not “pander” to voters by setting, as Newt has, a certain price for gas in the future. Here’s a good summary of the criticism from CNN.

The promise might garner attention on the campaign trail, but there’s little politicians can do to influence the price of gasoline in the short-term, and long-run efforts are likely to be complicated by the global nature of the crude oil market.

“Political rhetoric is all it is,” said Guy Caruso, an economist who led the Energy Information Administration and worked as an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

“Short of price controls, which were a disaster during the Nixon administration, politicians can’t do much to change the price of gasoline,” he said.

Other industry experts CNNMoney surveyed echoed those sentiments.

“This is absurd,” said Paul Bledsoe, a Bipartisan Policy Center scholar who spent more than 20 years working on energy policy in Washington. “Obviously the price of oil is set on a global market. In the immediate term there is almost nothing you can do.”

Both of those arguments are ridiculous and I can prove it with a couple charts and a few simple links.

Here is a chart of gasoline and crude oil prices that goes back four years. It’s tracked by the GasBuddy site, which tracks gasoline prices from all over the country. If you want to know what gas costs in your area, GasBuddy is there for you. And no, I don’t work for GasBuddy, but it’s a terribly useful site if you want to scout out gasoline prices in your burg, or elsewhere.

Notice that little gap between 6/4/2008 and 7/25/2008. At that point, gasoline hovered around $4.00 a gallon nationally, and crude oil was at nearly $150 a barrel. Then something happened, very close to July 25 that drove the prices of both down to the point that, by the beginning of 2009, gas cost less than $2.00 a gallon. Something happened to drop the cost of a gallon of gas about $2 a gallon. What could have happened?

Well, how about this?

President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit.

Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil drilling is “one of the most important steps we can take” to reduce that burden.

However, the move is largely symbolic as there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.

“This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress,” Bush said.

A few months after signed his executive order, President Bush signed legislation to lift the decades-old moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

Now, follow that little blue arrow. President Bush signed his executive order on July 14, 2009 at which point prices dropped to about $3.50 a gallon. They dropped slightly, blipped upwards a bit, then dropped off the table as Congress debated, and finally passed, the legislation which ended the offshore exploration moratorium in late October. The President signed it into law and gas prices continued to drop through the rest of the year.

But what happened after that? Well, let’s look at this timeline, and use this chart for reference.

As you can see, gas prices nudged up after the first of the year, as the Bush administration ended and the administration of the man who promised to raise energy prices began. In February, 2009, Energy Secretary Salazar made it known that the Obama administration would shelve the previous administration’s Outer Continental Shelf lease plan for six months while he went on a “listening tour”. The Bush plan would have opened up a number of new leases for domestic exploration and drilling and had already received significant public input, most of which was positive. Between then and September, when he announced that we would see no new lease plan until at least 2012, gas prices rose sharply and continued to trend steadily upwards.

The big blow came on December 1, 2010 when President Obama slapped a new moratorium on drilling over many, of not most, of the areas the Bush administration had opened just a year earlier. You can see what happened to the price of gasoline after that.

So, you still think, as CNN dismissively wrote, “there’s little politicians can do to influence the price of gasoline in the short-term”? It looks to me as if there’s quite a bit politicians did do and there is every reason to believe that we would see a similar drop in gas prices if the politicians in Washington decide to allow us to get the trillions of gallons of oil we and the rest of the world know are in areas Barack Obama has specifically placed off-limits.

I want to make one more point here. When George Bush signed that executive order and when Congress lifted the moratorium, gas prices dropped even though we had not pumped one drop of oil from those newly-opened areas. The very idea that the United States would tap its immense oil wealth — put into motion with a concrete government action — caused the worldwide markets to move. Does anyone really believe that could not happen again? Remember, gas prices dropped well over $2.00 a gallon in four months in 2009. Newt Gingrich’s plan would only drop prices by $1.50 or so and he’s given no particular deadline for when that would happen. If it takes a year, that will mean that would have taken three times as long to do less than the Bush administration did.

That does not strike me as “absurd” “political rhetoric” not a “pander” but a realistic goal with reasonable plans to back it up.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Minggu, 04 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Left’s Limbaugh Lie is No Fluke

Posted: 03 Mar 2012 02:28 PM PST

By now, you’ve probably heard of Sandra Fluke, the “coed” who testified before Congress last week about how she and her “coed” friends at Georgetown Law School can’t afford birth control. She claimed that 40 percent of women attending the tony college, some of whom have full-time jobs, could not afford birth control because it costs $1,000 a year. The Democrats and their MSM lickspittles took Fluke’s comments at face value then ran with them to the conclusion that EEEEEEEEEEVIL Republicans want to take birth control away from every woman in America.

  1. Sandra Fluke isn’t a young coed. She’s a 30 year-old professional “reproductive rights” activist who targeted Georgetown University, a Catholic school, specifically because of its faith-based policy.
  2. Fluke’s numbers are ridiculous. She claimed that birth control costs students $1,000 a year for three years. That is flat-out nuts. Any Georgetown student can get very inexpensive, or even free, birth control close to campus. In other places, birth control is so easy to find that you can literally fill your pockets with free condoms in a couple hours. The notion that birth control is widely unavailable and/or prohibitively expensive is a lie.
  3. No one — no one — in the Republican Party is trying to take birth control away from women. Georgetown Law School has not stopped any student, male or female, from buying whatever contraceptive they desire. The school does not generally provide contraceptives on its health care plans because — and pay attention here, because this is crucial — to do so would violate its religious beliefs.

I’ll get back to the crucial point in a moment. First, I want to comment on Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment, because it bears directly on that crucial point. The MSM and their friends on the left have claimed, very loudly, that Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show this week. As such, they have bent the discussion from whether the government has the power to force you to violate your religious beliefs to whether Rush Limbaugh is a big meany-head. Their disingenuous reports have, as planned, caused many people on the right who should know better to attack Limbaugh as a loose cannon and a detriment to conservatism.

To those on the right who swallowed the progressive load of crap they were given by the MSM, I say shame on you. How many times to you have to be fooled badly before you learn never to accept what the left says about one of us? Here is what Rush said, from his own transcript, posted on February 29th.

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

What, exactly, is objectionable about that? Sandra Fluke did demand from a Congressional committee that you and I pay her and her fellow “coeds” $1,000 a year so they can have as much sex as they please. What else would you call a woman who makes such a demand? Note also that Rush corrected himself just seconds later to make his answer more accurate. Fluke’s statement doesn’t make her a slut but a prostitute, which is exactly how she portrayed herself before Congress. She wants our money to have sex. She sold her dignity and integrity to the progressive movement in order to take your freedom of choice and conscience away from you. What Rush said was certainly brash and indelicate, but since when it is wrong for a broadcaster to be brash and indelicate? He didn’t call her a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” nor did he use the word “slut” as a direct insult. He has apologized for his use of the word, which is more than any progressive has ever done, but he needn’t have done so. He did nothing wrong except to expose yet another progressive attempt to lie their way into more power.

That, folks, is what this whole contraceptive debate is about. It has nothing to do with health care or women or poverty. Those making hay out of the word “slut” couldn’t care less about Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Fluke or civility or health. They care about control. Sandra Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the rest of those shrieking about Rush Limbaugh today believe they are smarter and better than you. They believe they are more fit than you to make essential decisions about your life and your livelihood. They believe they have not only the right but the duty to decide where you spend your money, what health care you receive, what you eat and drink, and what car you drive (or even whether you drive one at all). Most importantly, they believe they have the power to decide what religious beliefs you may exercise, publicly and in private. They believe with all their hearts that their faith in the government is more important and should have greater power than your faith in God, Allah, Buddah, or no supreme being at all. To get the power they crave, they have turned law-abiding American citizens into enemies: “the rich”, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, the Catholic Church, you. They are the tyrants about whom the Founders warned us; the people whose totalitarian dreams they preemptively crushed with the First Amendment.

The only way the progressive left can take control of our lives is if we let them. They can bluster and pose all they want about Rush Limbaugh, but they have no power unless we give it to them. You wouldn’t normally cede that much control to them because you are a reasonable, rational, and free human being, so they have to trick you into it. That is why they had to build such a ridiculous lie about the cost of birth control and why they lied about what Rush Limbaugh said and why they magnified both lies to the level of Great National Crisis.

They should pay for their dishonesty with their jobs.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Kamis, 01 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart, the Friend I Never Really Met.

Posted: 01 Mar 2012 09:03 AM PST

I didn’t know Andrew Breitbart. I wish I did. I had a couple chances to meet him at CPAC last month, but he always had a throng around him and I’m no good at pushing though crowds, so I didn’t take the opportunity to introduce myself. I doubt that he knew who I was, though we had several friends in common. Despite that, I considered him a friend because, though he probably didn’t know me, he would have had my back if I needed him to because that’s the sort of man he was.

And now, he is dead at the age of 43. He left a wife and four children. My heart breaks for them and for the legion of people to whom he was so very dear.

Andrew was fearless, a warrior for conservatism, and a man who knew that friends are dear in this world so you’d better fight for the ones you have. And he did. Oh, how he fought on behalf of his friends. We remember how he want to war for his conservative friends like James O’Keefe and Dana Loesch, but we should also remember how he went to bat for Arianna Huffington. I admire that. I wish we had more of it in this world.

Andrew Breitbart was a good man and we will miss him.

Well, not all of us. Some among the progressives couldn’t wait to leap up and down like the goons they are deep inside and fling the biggest piles of poo they could excrete. Andrew seemed to get energy from his left-wing critics and it’s entirely possible that he would rejoice that his death cause such prominent members of the left as these professional bloggers and frequent MS-NBC guests to tweet like this today.


It’s confirmed.Breitbart has passed away. http://t.co/gpOwndWx Ironic legacy is that no one was sure because it was reported by his website.
@cenkuygur
Cenk Uygur


Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @ dead.
@mattyglesias
Matt Yglesias


If you think @‘s opponents shouldn’t be glad he’s dead, you’re not taking his life’s work seriously.
@mattyglesias
Matt Yglesias

Surprisingly, Media Matters, which whom Andrew battled almost daily, refrained from celebration (though the comment section of their post is a cesspool of hate like he received from the left every day of his life). He would also not be surprised at all that the Associated Press couldn’t resist getting in a few biased (and untrue) digs at him in its story about his death.

I want to leave you with something better though, better even than the speech he delivered at CPAC this month. Please read these tributes by Melissa Clouthier, Matt Welch, and Jonah Goldberg. They both knew Andrew far better than I and confirm what I knew to be true, even from a great distance. He was a brilliant, joyful, creative new media visionary who was filled to the very brim with love for his country, his family, and his friends. My condolences and prayers are with his family and all who considered him dear.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

The Delivery Presents – The Moderate Myth and My Musical Malaise

Posted: 29 Feb 2012 10:23 AM PST

Episode 136 was a low-key affair that asked more questions than it answered, at least in the second half. First, though, I needed to deal with the news of the day — the retirement of a Senator from Maine and the inevitable “ZOMG THE MODERATES ARE GOING AWAY” narrative her retirement is sure to bring. For that, I invoked the power of facts, in the form of actual numbers. The conclusion? Well, you’ll have to listen to find out, won’t you?

The second half was a low-key affair in which I reveal why I’m always late to church (Hint: it’s music-related) and talk about a fear larger than the fear of failure. I admit up-front that I don’t have great answers to any of the questions I raise, but if you do, I most definitely want to hear from you. Just drop me a note with your thoughts and if i get enough responses, I’ll revisit one or both topic in a later show.

Also, need to give a shout-out to Super Mega Producer Mike for the lovely show art this week. He always finds good stuff for the weekly graphic, but this week’s art is the best I’ve seen in a long while.

Oh, hey! Did you know that you can subscribe to The Delivery on iTunes? You can, by clicking this link right here. A subscription will bring fresh, hot episodes of the show right to your iTunes so you can load them up on your iPod, iPad, iPhone, or iWhatever. It’s easy, fast, and free! What’s not to like?

The Delivery - Episode 136

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now