Why Obama Gets Away with it

Barack Obama is being touted as a new kind of politicians. How true – but for reasons different than most people think. The Hope of Obama is that he would be authentic – genuinely working both sides of the aisle to get practical solutions for the American people. He wanted to move past the Boomer politics of Bill Clinton who used division to power his way through the political landscape.

But what Obama has proven is that he’s a far worse kind of politician than Bill Clinton could ever aspire to be. Clinton was a slick politician, able to triangulate his way through two terms, but he did so openly. No secrets (well, other than the ones Ken Starr uncovered!) . Obama, on the other hand, works the same two-sides-of-his-mouth, what-the-definition-of-is-is politics, except that he does so secretly. He pretends otherwise.

“As president, I will never allow drilling offshore.” “I can see myself supporting an energy policy that includes offshore drilling.” “My position has been clear from the beginning and has not changed.” Anyone who follows Obama closely sees this hypocrisy ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY. Except, of course, those (usually media types) who intentionally choose to be blind to his two-sided hypocrisy, or, even worse, spin it to say, “this is the kind of bold leadership we expect from a president.”

I ask, how can Obama get away with this? How can he get away with openly flip-flopping all around to pander for votes while saying he’s not flip-flopping to get votes? Simple. He plays to the mass of superficial Americans who do not pay the least bit of attention to the words and actions of presidential candidates. They buy simplistic media talking-points and are mesmerized by flashy words and celebrity status over real positions on issues. And rather than being principled on what he believes, Obama plays to the ignorant masses by taking the popular position of the day whether or not it is in line with his “principles.”

So, yes. Obama is a new kind of politician all right. He’s the worst kind. He’s a political wolf dressed in
Armani clothing.

Obama vs. McCain (complex vs. simple)

They say the best explanation is often the simplest one.  If so, what does the candidates explanation of the surge say about who’s telling the truth?

MCCAIN: War going bad, needed surge, got surge, all better.

OBAMA: I was against the war from the beginning which shows my superior judgment.  My superior judgment was confirmed when the war started going horribly.  Then they talked about the surge, which I was against.  I know things are better, but it’s not because of the surge and I was right to oppose the surge.  The surge didn’t make things better, though when American troops are asked to do a job, you can always count on them to make things better.  Things got better because they would have gotten better anyway, even if we had not done the surge.  And things really aren’t better.  Just ask Nanci Polosi.  She’ll tell you.  The Iraqi government had not established the political reformation needed, though we have seen the violent civil war pretty much go away.  But again, I was not for the surge, nor did it work.  Things just got better apart from the surge.  And Maliki wants a draw down in American troops as well.  Because American troops aren’t needed as much because violence is down.  So he supports my position, just as long as he doesn’t think that the surge of troops is what got us to this point.  Maybe he wants us out because things are just so bad.  I’m not sure.  I’ll have to ask him.  But what we really need is more troops in Afghanistan.  Two brigades more, that is.  Just don’t ask me how many troops are in a brigade and how I came up with that number.  The additional troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, though it won’t be because we surged more troops there (though the troops always make things better).  It will just have gotten better in Afghanistan, but not because of more troops, but just because.  You know my position on this has been clear from the beginning, and I just don’t understand why you would continue to ask me about this.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Why Gas Prices are High

Okay… I’m not an economist, but here’s what I think is happening, and yep… idiot politicians are to blame.

Here’s why…

Gas prices are determined by the old fashioned laws of supply and demand, right? Here’s the problem. Demand is rising about 6 percent worldwide per year. But if my calculations are correct, the price of gas has increased much more than 6 percent. What? 100 percent in a year or two?

The rise in gas prices have far outpaced the realities of the growing world economy. Experts guess that the price should really be about $60 a barrel, not $140 a barrel. Why aren’t we still paying $2 a gallon? Basic economics (minus political hot air) gives the clear picture. Here’s how it works…

Oil is a free market commodity. The beauty of oil is that this international commodity transcends the many kinds of governments in the world. No single government (or world government, for that matter) can truly regulate oil. Oil is going to do what oil is going to do. And the freer oil is to do what it’s going to do, the better.

The truth is, everyone is trying to point a finger at greedy oil companies for some kind of pricing conspiracy, but in a free market, that doesn’t happen. Why? Because when prices get too high, things naturally correct. It’s beautiful really. $4 a gallon gas promotes changes in driving habits and invention that GUARANTEES that gas prices will eventually fall back in line. $135 a barrel oil gives incentives for oil companies to explore in places they could never have afforded to when they were getting $35 a barrel. Oil, when left alone, can never destroy our economy. In a free market, it’s impossible for oil to get so highly prices that everything comes to a halt (which is the kind of doom and gloom some like to predict). Why, after all, would oil producers allow oil to sit unsold because they demand some ridiculous price? They want to sell oil! So when we stop driving… we start inventing… they LOWER the price. And eventually, the market produces a sweet spot we can all live with.

Since this isn’t happening, it must the fault of speculators, right? Well, if you chalk out the crime scene, the speculators have their fingerprints closest to the gun. They are the final actor in the oil commodities drama. But what are speculators doing, really? Are they hiding in a room somewhere conspiring to drive up prices just for fun? When people say this, they are forgetting that speculators are the ones paying $135 a barrel. Why? Not because it’s a “fair” price, or because that price falls in line with supply and demand. Nope. They pay that amount because, IN THE FUTURE, someone will pay them MORE for that barrel than they paid for it now. That’s why they call it the FUTURES market. It’s like a stock. You don’t necessarily buy a stock based upon the strength of a company, but because of what you think you’ll get at a later date.

So… let’s be a speculator for a moment. As a speculator, we are speculating about the future. We’re asking, “What will someone pay in the future for my barrel of oil?” You’re not asking what’s fair or what makes sense, only what you can get for it in the future. In a TRULY FREE MARKET, a speculator would run from $135 a barrel oil when it really should be priced at $60 a barrel according to current market realities. After all, at $135 a barrel, one would expect that oil production to rise, demand to decrease, and the barrel of oil to fall in value. Who wants to be holding on to a $135 barrel of oil when people will only pay $100 or less?

But, counter to basic free market rules, speculators only see the value rising. Why?

Because we don’t have a TRULY FREE MARKET. There are people who get in the way. And they are called politicians. When a politician says, “You can’t drill here.” “You can’t drill there.” “We want to take your profits.” “We won’t approve new nuclear plants.” “We want to get rid of speculators.” These idiots… these politicians… have stepped in the middle of the Indianapolis Speedway in the middle of a race and wondered why there are wrecked cars piling up all around them. So they turn and blame drivers and crew chief members and fans and announcers and officials for the reason the race has stalled, when THEY ARE THE ONES STANDING IN THE WAY. If they just got off the track, the race would resume with great precision!

If oil companies could drill… If power companies could build nuclear plants… If politicians just let things happen, everything would correct itself. That’s what a free market does. But as the Huffingtons of the world say in mocking fashion, “Those are just the ridiculous words of you free market crazies.”  And politicians are famous for saying, “But if we start drilling now, we won’t see the effects at the gas pump for ten years.”  Absolutely WRONG!  The second drilling commences in ANWR and the gulf and other places, speculators will drop their barrels of oil like hot potatoes and prices will fall with them.  Why?  Because once drilling begins, no speculator worth her salt will believe in a future of $200 a barrel oil.  There would be no future for high oil prices.  There wasn’t in 1980’s and there won’t be in the 2010’s.  Things will correct themselves.

But the good news is, even politicians get corrected once in a while. $4 a gallon gas doesn’t just drive people to alternative fuels or electric cars. It eventually drives them into voting booths to move out the human speed bumps and put in some “green flag” legislators.

We can only hope that McCain’s latest flip-flop… his sudden embrace of offshore drilling and the creation of nuclear power plants… is the beginning of a new free market correction. It’s time to “correct” our lopsided and outdated legislature who kisses the butts of environmentalists and 1960’s airhead liberals. It’s time for them to look at the majority of people with voting power who now are ready to rise up against ridiculous and radical environmentalists. It’s time to get this dead-heads off the track and let the green flag wave.

R.I.P. Tim Russert

Unbelievable…

Unbelievable that the the fourth branch of American politics is dead. Unbelievable that the one LAST hard edged, balanced journalist left in Washington is dead. In the past two years, my Sunday’s have been centered around two people: Jesus Christ and Tim Russert. Jesus centers me in my spiritual life and Tim Russert brings me right down to earth where the problems of life are real.

I haven’t missed a “Meet the Press” podcast since 2005. It was the absolute highlight of my political week. He was my favorite Catholic and the only person that could make me wish the Buffalo Bills had actually won one of those Super Bowls.

He was the “Everyman” of journalism. when he asked a question, you felt he was asking on behalf of the  American people.  Forget all these vapid Washington news-dudes who are shocked – yes SHOCKED – that there are people in America who carry guns and love God – guys who can’t relate to middle America. He was middle America. As one person said, “He might have moved to Washington, but he never left Buffalo.”

What will we do? Meet the Press with Keith Olbermann? Meet the Press with Chris Matthews? God forbid. We were just musing the other day who would be the next Meet the Press man. Perhaps David Gregory.

I remember last Father’s Day him talking about his father. What a sad Father’s Day this will be for his son, Luke.

Lastly, since I heard the news, I’ve been asking, “Why, God?” Perhaps this is why. Today, Tim is in heaven and he has God across the table and he’s asking, “Where were you when those four Boy Scouts died in the tornado?” And believe me, the usual mystical God-answer won’t do. The follow-up questions will be tough, and God will have to come out answering… finally! So if the mysteries of the universe become less cloudy in the days ahead, we’ll know why.

Unbelievable.

Servant Leadership

I yield the great influence of this blog to my brother, Brandon, who has penned this excellent piece…

I recently saw the movie “300″ about a band of elite Spartan forces determined to fight, to the death if necessary, to defend the City-States of Greece from the invading Persian forces led by Xerxes.
The mythical million man army of Xerxes is bottlenecked in a canyon defended by the 300. The Spartans know they cannot ultimately win but merely hope to hold off the Persians long enough so that the Greek armies can mobilize in time to defend their homeland. Day after day the Spartan forces fend off the invaders and slay thousands in the process. Xerxes reaches the point of exacerbation and calls for a meeting with Leonidas, the leader of the Spartan fighters.

[SCROLL DOWN FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE]

Xerxes offers Leonidas all the wealth, women and power he could ever want in exchange that he bow down before him, lay down his arms and join the Persians. Leonidas refuses. Xerxes fumes with anger as he exclaims,”I am willing to sacrifice all of my men to destroy you.

Leonidas responds calmly…”and I would willingly lay down my life for any of my men and that is why we will be victorious.” Ultimately, Leonidas and his men were overcome by the million, but he provided the time necessary for the Greek army to mobilize and push back the Persians. It would later be Greece that goes on to build a great civilization that would plant the seeds for Western culture.

The point is, servant leadership works. The 300 were motivated beyond words to defend their cause. Conversely, the unmotivated army of Xerxes knew they were simply cannon fodder for the selfish purposes and aggrandizement of Xerxes. Although this movie is part myth, part history, it clearly illustrates the power of great leadership which contrary to the perception of many, is not about charisma and power, but about humility and putting the needs of the many above yourself.

This simple but underestimated approach to leadership is missed by a great many managers and C.E.O.’s. I think servant leadership has most recently been damaged by Donald Trump and his T.V. series, The Apprentice, in which ambitious young business people are mentored by The Donald who encourages zealous competition, backstabbing and underhanded tactics to outmaneuver competitors. Only the most shrill and merciless tactitions have hope to become the next Apprentice. The uncritical observer may confuse this for leadership. However, these “apprentices” have no idea how to run an organization and I would dare say would probably destroy any organization in a matter of weeks. Donald Trump is an example himself. Although he has attained a great fortune, it has come at a cost of annihilation and destruction for anything he has touched. His only legacy is one of a “cult of personality” but he has no empire (contrary to public perception). Just ask all of his unpaid vendors and the Casino’s that have gone into bankruptcy due to his mismanagement. If you just want to simply get rich and leave a path of destruction along the way, you can always follow the path of Xerxes or Donald Trump. However, if you want to attain greatness and build an organization that will last the test of time, follow Leonitis.

Why Global Warming is the Perfect Liberal Issue

Global Warming is the perfect issue for liberals. Here are few reasons.

1. It’s a “can’t lose” argument. Global warming (ehem… “Climate change.” Excuse me.) can’t be defeated. Ever heard “if we don’t change NOW, our planet will be destroyed in (ehem) 100 years”? None of them will ever be around when it’s disproven. And it can be supported no matter what the weather. Temps go up. Warming. Temps go down. Warming. More hurricanes. Warming. Less hurricanes. Remember… it will be 100 years before we get more hurricanes! And, God forbid, the temps stay the same, that means that we are experiencing global warming and global cooling AT THE SAME TIME!!! HELP MEEEEEE!!!

2. It requires more government. The solution to global warming requires MORE government and the unification of governments around the world. They used to argue at we needed more government (i.e. less freedom) for the purposes of a “fairer” society as well as nanny-state purposes. But that wasn’t working. Now, they can argue that we need more government (i.e. less freedom) in order to survive! Who can argue against survival?

3. It advances elitism. Appeals to the liberal notion that “experts” know better (i.e. liberal gov’t elitists) and we must “trust” them with full power which they will promise they will use with tremendous generosity. And conveniently, Americans have forgotten all the cruel 20th century dictators who used the same argument.

4. It’s non-negotiable. It requires no debating, something liberals avoid at all costs. “The argument is settled,” Al says. And 400 of the world’s best scientists (sorry, we can’t provide the list) agree. And don’t ask how many disagree. We don’t count them. They’re just “deniers” of the truth. Besides, we can’t spend time arguing when our children’s future is in peril.

5. It’s third world regressive. (This one’s their favorite) It requires that we punish ourselves back into the dark ages. No more setting our thermostats at 72. No more driving comfortably. No more commuting to a good job. No more keeping our cell phone chargers plugged in 24/7. No more watering our lawns. No more buffets (“eating as much as we want”). No more incandescent light bulbs… Heck… No more light bulbs, period! REMEMBER… these apply ONLY to the non-elites. Elites will be allowed to break these rules in order to save us from ourselves.

Well, that’s my top five. What are yours? I’m sure this list is hardly complete.

New Kind of Politics? I’ll pass

Barack says he’ll change Washington with a new kind of politics. Yet he continues to say he’ll meet with Aquavelvajad “without condition” within the first 100 days of his presidency. This is foolish. No president has ever made this kind of step towards a thug so infamous. All the comparisons to other presidents and their visits to other world leaders fall flat. Those were always preceeded by careful back-door negotiations and talks and predetermined conditions. And the comparison to the careful back-door talks that are no doubt taking place between the Bush Administration and Iran are bogus comparisons. These are the proper kind of “talks.” Obama’s idea of “talks” would make America a weak embarrassment to the rest of the world.

So why does he maintain this foolish policy stance? Because, as some commentator said this weekend, Barack has turned a “debate blunder” into “policy.” That is, instead of being a new kind of politician (honest with the American people) and admitting to the debate blunder, he pretends he meant this. Instead of putting America’s standing in the world before his pride, he is determined to save face by turning this into actual policy. So his foreign policy is determined by his need to look good for the American people. Isn’t this the same guy who decries Bush for not admitting failure in Iraq. How about Obama show us how that works by admitting the failure of his idea? Or is HE the Bush Three?

Where’s the authenticity? Where’s the honesty? If this is the new politics, I’ll pass.

What Kind of America?

McCain gave a speech a few days ago to a group of concerned citizens of Portland, Oregon about the hazards of global warming and it’s affect on the planet.  He vowed to put the government into action to force businesses to help prevent this from getting worse.  He sides with changing America for the sake of the planet.

I’m voting for McCain because he likes to kill terrorists – a good way for an American president to spend his time.  Without our freedom from radicals, what kind of country do we have.  McCain helps protect us and our way of life.

But I must ask, what good is saving a country from terrorists if we’re going to cave in to environmental terrorists who are using “climate change” scare tactics to undermine our way of life, to force us into becoming an extension of European whimpyism, and to live like hermits in worship to Mother Earth.  Environmental terrorism isn’t a lot different than Islamic terrorism.  Islamic extremists believes that the world would be a lot better without unbelieving humans on the planet.  Well, the greenies believe that the earth would be a lot better off if there weren’t these dad gum humans on the planet.

I know what McCain is trying to save us from.  But what is he trying to save us for?

Guns and Bibles

An Obama supporter knocked on my door today to give me an Obama flyer. A great sense of frustration had been overwhelming me – a bitterness, really – and I found myself greeting him with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other, asking him if he would keep any immigrants from buying the house next door. Maybe if I vote for Obama, he’ll help me understand why I am this way.

Environmental Religionism

I took my son last week to see the IMAX film “Grand Canyon.” Once again, I found myself entrenched in a propaganda film. Instead of getting to enjoy the incredible beauty of the Grand Canyon (there were surprisingly few of the stunning shots we come to expect), the filmographer followed a family of environmental activists (accompanied by a “Native American” guide who happens to be a direct descendant of the original inhabitants of the Grand Canyon) through the Colorado River as they talked about how “sick” the river was and how soon it would be irrevocably destroyed.

Along the way, they referred back with great reverence to the “natural river” – in past tense, of course – noting the time before dams redirected the once natural river. I guess the river wasn’t natural anymore.

This confirms the oft stated notion that environmentalism is itself a type of religion. The theology undergirding this particular film is that there is a “natural state” of the river that has an inherently greater wisdom than that of a man-affected, dam influenced river. River left alone – good. River touched by man – bad. Nature – backed by supreme intelligence. Man – informed by supreme ignorance.

But here’s the inherent contradiction. They say that the formerly “natural” river had its own higher wisdom and is indeed greater than all the ideas of man. BUT, this same all-wise and powerful nature is for some reason unable to overcome or adjust to influences of man. Why can’t all-powerful nature find its way around man’s contrivances, if it’s so wise?

Actually, the film does subltly argue that nature can do so. They showed once arid sandbars that some dozen or so Native Americans once farmed on. But now that the river has changed, the sandbar is now lush with new green stuff. Good, right? Nope. The “natural” way was for the sandbar to be there for the dozen or so Native Americans. Green stuff, bad. Brown stuff, good. That’s nature’s way. But isn’t the green stuff now there (as an indirect result of man’s work) just as “natural.” Unless they believe that the same engineers that built the dams sneaked out there to plant greenery just to foil nature once again.

But think if it had happened differently. Imagine that a HUGE slab of rock had fallen off of the side of Grand Canyon some hundred years ago and dammed up the river. This formed new lakes and changed the flow of the river. Now there’s green stuff instead of brown stuff everywhere. Wouldn’t the naturalists be standing amazed at natures way of finding a way? That’s what I saw out of this. Nature doesn’t writhe around in some anemic state because man does his thing. Nature finds a way. And sometimes, nature turns brown stuff green! If these folks want to worship nature, worship it right!

But, they would say, nature has no fighting chance because we’ve warmed the planet. For the past fifty years, and perhaps fifty years to come, the river has been drying up. It’s half as full as it once was. GLOBAL WARMING is to blame. YET, and this is an important “yet”, early in the film, they document why the wonderful Native Americans no longer inhabit the Grand Canyon. Some thousand years ago, there was a – get this – FIFTY YEAR DROUGHT that caused the river to nearly dry up. They couldn’t grow food, and they had to leave. I won’t insult your intelligence by pointing out that contradiction.

If environmentalism has religious elements to it, it’s the flakiest, non-substantial religionism that I’ve ever encountered. And next time, I hope not to shell out $16 to hear about it.