Big Oil is a massive Sitting Duck on the pond of government life. People see the prices rising at the pump, they hear tidbits about CEO's with golden parachutes and it makes for good politics for the Big Boys and Girls in DC to call these oil honchos on the carpet. I would agree, corporate compensation has been over the top. But likewise, they are the guys who end up carrying their heads after an especially vicious internal debate and they don't get paid that money for not having had any experience. Give the devil his due-these folks didn't just drop in on Exxon the day after getting their BA's. So for all the anger that the American public has for oil, oil pricing and such consider the following:
"Last year the big five oil companies made around $123 billion in profits. Pretty strong. But what was their profit margin? Around 9%. Same as the year before and the year before that. The politicians can't pander to the dumb masses by slamming profit margins ... so they play the dishonest game of slamming the gross profits, and the media lets them skate. They start talking about "windfall" profits. Tell me ... how is it a windfall profit when the profit margin is remaining effectively the same? Some windfall..."-http://boortz.com
While you are at it casting stones, aspertions and innuendoes (and at the same time being politically motivated by an increasingly biased major media) consider the Big Who Else is profiting from increases in oil prices. And that Big Who Else are ALL THE TAXING ENTITIES including Your City or Town, Your County, Your State and Your Nation. All tax rates are based on a per dollar sale. So for all those people who think that this hurts our country, think again. It hurts THE PEOPLE, but all those taxing entities are flat rolling in dough. And by the way, that money isn't necessarily coming back home because the way of porkbarrel spending is that money goes wherever the head guy or gal says it goes. So look for those cushy public works projects to head to states that the Democrats need in November. And that means, boys and girls, we are going to end up paying $4.00 a gallon so that the DNC can win. How do you like them apples?
Showing posts with label politics of the wealthy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics of the wealthy. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Another View of Rev. Wright's Foot In Mouth Situation
I came across this online and thought that excerpts might be interesting to folks. This does have quite a bit to do with how Mr. Obama approaches issues and says a great deal about what his idea of equality might be. Don't you know HIllary's operatives are combing every piece of footage they can find on Rev. Wrights diatribes (I won't honor them by calling them sermons because sermons are about faith and this is partisan politics plain and simple.)
Entire article here.
"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.
For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.
Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.
The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."
"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.
(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.
(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.
What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."
Entire article here.
"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.
For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.
Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.
The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."
"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.
(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.
(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.
What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Another Global Warming "OOPSIE" Moment
So we have all these celebrity types who want to latch on and bask in the reflected glow of Al Gore under the dubious guise of "stopping Global Warming." Never mind that that particular moniker has recently been changed to "Global Change" which syncs nicely with someone's presidential campaign rhetoric, just pretend to go along. Well now it seems that some fairly heavy hitters who have spent more than a summer studying the weather, global currents and such are questioning the rush to judgment on the part of the Nobel committee and the Usual Suspects. Read the letter linked to the title above and the blog at Orange Punch and then ask yourself as the prices on gas rise and the demands of the liberal left further restrict domestic exploration and production if it's worth it to your family to keep throwing good money on bad science?
Bad Science
Bad Science
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Environmentalism and Forgetfulness
This from an owner of a supposedly "green" car:
From this site
"The Aptera is a new, much discussed vehicle, a gas-electric hybrid, that the developers claim will get around 300 miles per gallon of gasoline. It will retail for about $30,000. However, it makes sense only for someone who wants to show off his (or her or transgendered) environmental bona fides. As a money saver, it doesn't.
For example, I bought my car (a Japanese compact) ten years ago, and it was one year old at the time. I paid $11,000, which The Inflation Calculator says is about $13,600 today. Gasoline currently sells for about $3 a gallon. If I were to fill up the tank weekly (in reality I fill up far less often), the cost would be about $1560 a year. The Aptera's yearly gas cost would be only about a tenth of that, or $156, for a savings of about $1400 a year.
However, the difference in price between the two cars is over $16,000, so if an Aptera had been available ten years ago, and I had bought it instead, I would still not have saved enough money from lower gasoline costs to make up the difference. Furthermore, you're going to have to replace the Aptera's batteries every 8 years (I think) at huge cost. And even further, despite my car's status as a small car, it's a lot more solid and probably safer than the Aptera, which looks pretty flimsy.
The Aptera's price would have to come down considerably to make it price competitive with most current cars, and you'd still have to get over an aversion to driving in a cramped tricycle."
A comment logged in response to this post:
"I look forward to the day when horseriding as a form of transport make a comeback. That whole cowboy chic is very appealing, Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding."
Reference note in a study about transportation in New York City at the eve of the 20th century:
"The Automobile Age by James J. Flink. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998:. Sanitation p.136: Horse manure responsible for the spread of diseases in New York City. Flies which fed on manure also spread disease. Dead horses blocked streets."
The conclusion-too many people are so shallow in their knowledge and so lemming-like in their behavior, that they will buy and use products just because they claim a "green" status. Since our educational system has relegated the study of history to a minor status, we have countless people who like to pretend the Old West or the Victorian Era was a romantic wonderful time. They discount the scourges of disease, death, and danger which were always part of any person's life. Back then, there were no guarantees of survival past infancy. There were no safety nets, no social programs and no taxes to pay for such things. But this is the key problem that I have with so many of those who like to call themselves environmentalists. They want civilization to take a giant step back and they are willing to use any means necessary to do so. They are so ignorant of the realities of life without things like air conditioning, heating, cars, and such that they think doing without would be a picnic. People will do what they can as long as it doesn't negatively impact their lifestyle. And while those folks in the chichi mansions on Cape Cod and Malibu are really good about telling us little folks how we should do without, I doubt very much they would limit their own very large carbon footprints to do the same.
From this site
"The Aptera is a new, much discussed vehicle, a gas-electric hybrid, that the developers claim will get around 300 miles per gallon of gasoline. It will retail for about $30,000. However, it makes sense only for someone who wants to show off his (or her or transgendered) environmental bona fides. As a money saver, it doesn't.
For example, I bought my car (a Japanese compact) ten years ago, and it was one year old at the time. I paid $11,000, which The Inflation Calculator says is about $13,600 today. Gasoline currently sells for about $3 a gallon. If I were to fill up the tank weekly (in reality I fill up far less often), the cost would be about $1560 a year. The Aptera's yearly gas cost would be only about a tenth of that, or $156, for a savings of about $1400 a year.
However, the difference in price between the two cars is over $16,000, so if an Aptera had been available ten years ago, and I had bought it instead, I would still not have saved enough money from lower gasoline costs to make up the difference. Furthermore, you're going to have to replace the Aptera's batteries every 8 years (I think) at huge cost. And even further, despite my car's status as a small car, it's a lot more solid and probably safer than the Aptera, which looks pretty flimsy.
The Aptera's price would have to come down considerably to make it price competitive with most current cars, and you'd still have to get over an aversion to driving in a cramped tricycle."
A comment logged in response to this post:
"I look forward to the day when horseriding as a form of transport make a comeback. That whole cowboy chic is very appealing, Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding."
Reference note in a study about transportation in New York City at the eve of the 20th century:
"The Automobile Age by James J. Flink. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998:. Sanitation p.136: Horse manure responsible for the spread of diseases in New York City. Flies which fed on manure also spread disease. Dead horses blocked streets."
The conclusion-too many people are so shallow in their knowledge and so lemming-like in their behavior, that they will buy and use products just because they claim a "green" status. Since our educational system has relegated the study of history to a minor status, we have countless people who like to pretend the Old West or the Victorian Era was a romantic wonderful time. They discount the scourges of disease, death, and danger which were always part of any person's life. Back then, there were no guarantees of survival past infancy. There were no safety nets, no social programs and no taxes to pay for such things. But this is the key problem that I have with so many of those who like to call themselves environmentalists. They want civilization to take a giant step back and they are willing to use any means necessary to do so. They are so ignorant of the realities of life without things like air conditioning, heating, cars, and such that they think doing without would be a picnic. People will do what they can as long as it doesn't negatively impact their lifestyle. And while those folks in the chichi mansions on Cape Cod and Malibu are really good about telling us little folks how we should do without, I doubt very much they would limit their own very large carbon footprints to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)