Absurdistan Weekend Update #4: Plausible Evidence the Left has left the Reason Reservation
by Bob Stapler | View comments |
Print This Post
More from Bob Stapler.
You want to do the environmentally-responsible thing, but pause a moment before grabbing that bicycle for your morning commute. The Baltimore Examiner reports http://www.examiner.com/printa-1486211~As_number_of_bicyclists_climbs,_so_do_fatalities.html bicycle fatalities up a whopping 22% since 2003, likely due to the ride-a-bike-to-save-the-planet droids responding to the siren call of a gasoline-free utopia in an urban setting. The article goes on to argue the fault is a lack of ‘bicycle friendly’ infrastructure. What concerns me is Sheila Dixon, Baltimore’s Democrat mayor, has been beating the bike-to-work drum http://www.examiner.com/a-726950~Dixon_leads_bike_to_work_effort.html; though cautions us, now, to hasten slowly. Even a dilatory drive through Baltimore is enough to convince reasonable people bikes and cars are not a good mix here, and making downtown streets bicycle-friendly will take a lot more than rhetoric. This is an old, unplanned city with narrow, crowded lanes and cramped sidewalks. Closing off a couple of streets to make a bicycle corridor is not a bad idea, but once off such a corridor you are right in heavy traffic with nowhere to maneuver. So, the upgrades Dixon promotes take time and dollars to implement – lots of it. Dixon moved up from school-teacher to City Councilwoman in the late 1980’s, and her political résumé is a bit thin. In the year and a half since she was handed her mayor post (tapped by Martin O’Malley to fill his vacancy when he moved up to governor) she has already come under allegations of corruption, cronyism and impropriety http://www.examiner.com/a-1485225~Baltimore_Mayor_Sheila_Dixon_navigates_political_maelstrom.html, and is now seen as grandstanding to divert attention from said indiscretions. To her credit, she has not been as bad as O’Malley as mayor (nor as corrupt); but hey, give her a chance. Commonsense should have told Dixon that, push comes to shove, cars are going to win over bicycles; and, if you tell folks to mix it up with cars, the statistics won’t lie and won’t be pretty. Side-note: Dixon has only been mayor 18-months, but the Bicycle Master Plan she references was a state (not particularly city) plan begun under a Republican administration 3½ years ago.
In the wake of a rash of legislative privilege abuses, why should one more surprise us? Late last year, it was the real-estate (who me?) shenanigans of a certain Presidential candidate. In March it was NY Governor Eliot Spitzer (moralist extraordinaire and anti-corruption campaigner) caught in a sex and influence-peddling scheme. April it was Ohio AG Marc Dann caught in a combination sex/harassment/fraud/fixing & misconduct scandal, Oklahoma Sheriff Mike Burgess running a female sex-slave operation out of his jail, NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s office laundering millions in taxpayer money through nonexistent grants, Rep. Jim McDermott’s illegal wire-tap gerrymandering, May – Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s sex/perjury & obstruction scandal, Rep. Laura Richardson’s campaign-fund dipping, and in June – the ‘Countrywide Loan’ scandal netting two honorable congressmen. This time it is the Right Honorable Charles Rangel, NYC Congressman doing the honors. NYT has Rangel http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin unashamedly defending his right to lease not one but four (count ‘em) rent-controlled luxury-apartments in Harlem. Where’s the outcry from Rangel’s mostly poor, real-estate hungry constituents? Why is the outrage only against Republicans and never Democrats; and why haven’t these scoundrels been similarly ousted from cushy jobs? Well, of course, we know the answer: the media, protected-interests, and entrenched apparatchiks won’t impose the same high standards on their own they do the opposition; and, I suppose, in politics it will always be that way. But, just once, it would be refreshing to see some action to reign in pandering parasites who count on blind partisanship to enable it.
I keep reading of the ‘broken healthcare system’ http://www.workingamerica.org/healthcarehustle/hustlers.cfm , an assertion too few are willing to challenge, and too many willing to accept at face value because it is understood we stand to benefit. But, do we? Few issues are more complex, more confused, and more emotion laden than the cost of saving a human life – especially your own. This article at SF Gate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/23/MNUK11C28G.DTL is one of the more balanced I’ve seen in recent months, yet even it tends to lopsidedness. More often what I read casts the patient as victim to greedy doctors, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. At times, I get the impression there are people who will die before they will part with a single dime of their own money in the expectation government or the insurance companies must be made to pay. If we start from a situation where there is no medical system, no insurance, no charities, no benevolent societies, and no regulating government, the first guy to find a cure for a killer-ailment gets to call himself ‘doctor’ and charge as much as we are willing to pay. Then another guy discovers a still better cure and edges out witchdoctor #1 (who becomes #2); and so on. So what is witchdoctor #2 to do? He cuts his price and sells his services to a lower class clientele. Even those who cannot afford the ultimate in care still buy as much care as they can afford, making the hand-me-downs of the rich our best bet for survival. Read the SF Gate article again and you will see what is complained of is not access to care but access to the best care at bargain pricing. Try as they may, neither socialized nor government managed care can change the basic market dynamic. All they can (and do) is add another layer of cost and discourage innovation.
In an op-ed Friday, the Baltimore Sun portrays http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.iran11jul11,0,2142309.story Iran’s most recent missile launch as a response to Western ‘saber-rattling’ and so much “one-upmanship”; to which American demands of sanctions and blockade are “needlessly provocative”. The article further opines “… the U.S. has neither the troops nor the public support to strike Iran militarily” (the same thing said right before we took out Saddam). The Sun’s conclusion: regime change (both here and Tehran) and diplomacy for as long as it takes to get it right. What the op-ed fails to mention is Iran’s missile launches began well before (not after) U.S./British/Israeli exercises, many months of Iranian refusal to talk, the missiles in question have no other purpose than hitting Israel and/or our fleet and forces in the Gulf, and the probable use for most of these less than precise missiles is to deliver nukes. Iran tested the first of its missiles in February http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1202246332810&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull with additional launches in May http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148287850178&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and June. Iran has been testing missiles (including tactical missiles useful against warships and ground forces) on and off since 2003 http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm . Iran-Watch, a publication of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, http://www.iranwatch.org/update/index.html gives a truer picture of Iran’s WMD's and why concerned nations think sanctions and exercises the right response. The notion we have neither the will nor resources to fight and win in Iran (i.e., we’re stretched to our military limit) is nonsense. Given a media not intentionally demoralizing, we have the will; and we’ve barely scratched the surface of our capabilities. In World War II, almost 40% of U.S. GPD and 11% of man-power was diverted to war-fighting at a time when America was struggling out of the Great Depression. Currently, we are spending less than 4% of GPD and less than 0.01% of man-power fighting. The problem for us has never been one of winning, only one of commitment to winning. Too often we stop short of winning in the confused believe that somehow makes us the aggressor.
Baltimore Sun pixies (what escapes the Green eye):
(1) http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-07/40860269.jpg Bangkok Greenpeace activists pushing fuel-awareness to a country already saturated by small-cars, scooters, bicycles, and non-powered conveyances
(2) http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-07/40783615.jpg could be pollution or it could just be the ordinary haze of an L.A. inversion
(3) http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-07/40899724.jpg wind turbines against a water backdrop centered on Greenpeace flagship ‘Rainbow Warrior’ (note how little the turbine blades are turning [sail and water flat] and showing signs of rust)
In a desperate bid at not-biting-the-bullet http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/09/national/w080309D72.DTL&hw=pelosi&sn=004&sc=556 , Senator Pelosi has demanded President Bush release oil from the national reserve (McCain apparently agrees). What Pelosi does not get (despite multiple Senate hearings explaining it) is what drives cost is not always availability. Other factors include things like an expectation of unavailability, price-setting to manage profits, the activity of major consumers to lock in a price, and environmental hype. Right now, availability is about the only thing not driving price. Okay, so why not force speculators, at least, to cool their speculating as the one thing we can control. Not so fast! Some of those speculators are institutional investors managing things like your 401K. That means as you pay at the pump, some of that comes back to you as a ‘proxy speculator’. As the economy slowed, fund-managers looked around for anything still afloat and likely to stay afloat (i.e., conservative investments). Because oil drives so much else in the market, it falls under this heading. As more funds shifted to oil, oil, as an investment, became a scarce commodity; and as we all know, scarce = higher price. So, even though actual oil availability is decent, oil as an exchange commodity is not. How would you feel knowing your broker kept your personal pile in something that’s not one of the few investments still giving a decent ROI? Many of us are looking at lackluster pension performance with oil-&-gas about the only bright spot. As for the other cost drivers: the future is a little fuzzy, consumers have a need to control costs, and (call me crazy) I’m all for reigning in environmental hype. The National Reserve contains about 2-months worth of oil after which we’re without a reserve in the event OPEC decides to cut production or sell elsewhere. 700-million gallons sounds like a lot, but isn’t. Two-month’s worth puts a very small dent in a market that takes three times that long to realize there’s been a glut and is now more OPEC dependent than ever. The reserve is designed to prevent an interruption in flow, not satisfy panicked constituents you’re taking action that can’t possibly benefit them in any significant sense. Pelosi, et al, are saying “we can’t drill or refine our way out of this”. Supposing that to be true, how much less true is it a 2-month shot in the economy is going to change that more? Added capacity is, at least, added capacity. Tapping the reserve is no more than draining gasoline from one section of an existing supply-chain. This fellow http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/05/oil_speculation.html disagrees speculation is the only or major component, and I tend to agree. More to the point he doesn’t think the options offered amount to more than political posturing.
We have exploding man-hole covers http://www.wbaltv.com/news/16882590/detail.html here in Baltimore (just as in other cities this time of year). Coincidentally, a new Batman movie is out featuring eerily similar (if bigger) pyrotechnics. Old infrastructures, electrical hot-spots, a heat-wave, and the natural tendency of concentrated street oils and soil gases to collect in low spots combine to create an explosive mix. No one’s pointing fingers or assigning blame just yet (least of all to fantasy face painted villains in and under the streets), but there is something about this urban phenomenon that vexes passersby to no end and evokes demands government do something to stop it. Well, one solution would be to relocate out of cities. Absurdistan being what it is, no one shows much sign of doing that. Hey, that might involve living next to, like, you know, non-liberals! Holy block-voter bust-up Batman!
And speaking of cartoonish depictions, the Obama caricature on New Yorker Magazine cover http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_el_pr/obama_new_yorker has excited a lot of attention. But, what I find more interesting is the subtleties of reaction. Of course Obama supporters think it’s unfair, but did they think the Bush, Reagan or Perot caricatures unfair? Well, no but, hey, that’s not the same because this is, like, ‘hurtful’. Still, that’s not the reaction I am talking about. I am minded of how Bush, Reagan and Perot shrugged off lampooning as ‘part of the game’. Reagan laughed along with some of it, George H.W. Bush studiously ignored it, G.W. (chimp, big-eared dope, Mickey Mouse, leprechaun, cowboy-gunslinger, devil, convict stripes, imperialist, warmonger, murderer, &c) sometimes blushed, sometimes smiled, and sometimes ignored but never took offense at it; and Perot swore he could do them one better and that he was a ‘born’ caricature. How does Obama react? He feigns disinterest but has his front-man denounce it as “tasteless and offensive’. Meanwhile, his supporters accuse NYM of conspiring in a ‘poisonous Republican bias’. I recall Bill and Hillary reacting similarly offended, but not quite this early on. It’s just a caricature – a distillation of what’s on people’s minds – not necessarily what the artist thinks or character assassination.
I wish to close this week’s report on a down note regarding a stand-up, up-beat guy – Tony Snow. I know I’m late in the parade of eulogies, but you can never find enough nice things to say about a guy like Tony. His cancer and death came as a shock (not just because I’m only a few years his senior, but because he was such a dynamic person). I regard Tony as a friend I’ve never actually met (and I bet a lot of you folks feel the same way). In many ways, he was the guy most of us try to be. I’ve listened to Tony banter and spar with the best, and come away – if not always victorious – always respected, always appreciated, and always positive. Tony was well liked for his wit, humor, humility, and gentle-jousting. He was so likable, even the opposition could not help but melt to his gentle wit in hot debate. He was also the kind of guy for whom family genuinely mattered most. He spoke to us candidly of G*d and country, but never preachy, pretentious or cloying. He leaves a legacy of grace, honesty and journalistic integrity others could do well to emulate. As Press Secretary he was master of turning the loaded question around, forcing the inquirer to defend the question; yet did so to reframe a question more than deflect – sort of: before I answer, let’s negotiate the terms. We were sometimes frustrated he used this style deflecting conservative as effectively as liberal queries, but were heartened at seeing a conservative hold his own against a determined to ensnare press-corps without ever loosing his cool. Tony left this influential position last year because of cancer, but, quintessential Tony, his primary concern was family. Faced with cancer, most of us think of family, but first of staying alive. Tony weighed the odds and decided he needed to get his affairs in order that his wife and children would not suffer. Despite his better than average earnings, cancer at 50 caught him unprepared and ate away at his savings at the same time consuming him; so, at 53, he gave up this terrific job to make as much money as he could in the short time remaining. Tony will also be remembered by the many men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, for whom he was a cheerleader. Where others found setbacks and obstacles, Tony consistently reported their success, commitment, and confidence. This year, we lost two great, but quite different, conservative voices in Buckley and Snow. Where Buckley was often cool, distant and an icon; Snow was warm, accessible and an ‘every-man’. With Buckley we’d soar with an eagle, but with Snow found delight in the simple and real. Pundit, spokesman, gentleman, optimist, musician, sport-enthusiast, family-man, friend …. Already, we miss you.
If you wish to donate something to help Tony’s family out, I understand a trust has been set up at http://www.healthtransformation.net/.
That’s the news from Absurdistan. I hope the news, where you are, is all good.
– Bob Stapler is a mechanical engineer sneaking reports out from under the very noses of blue state censors with the aid of conservative friends
rstapler@aceweb.com
Read more articles by Bob Stapler
