Absurdistan Weekend Update #8: Liberals Heroically Waging the War of Whine

 by Bob Stapler  

| View comments |  Print This Post

The world according to Bob Stapler.

The big news this week is the Georgia-Russia conflict.  The Washington Post has published a commentary on the mess in Georgia by none other than former Soviet Premier Gorbachev, diplomatically titled "A Path to Peace in the Caucasus."  But, just how diplomatic is the path that Gorby proposes.  The article is full of soothing phrases even when charging that Bush, the U.S. and the West have conspired to incite "Georgian aggression."  In fact, the article never does quite propose anything like a "path" out of this (just another call for ineffective security measures down the road).  What Gorby is really saying is the matter is strictly Russian business in which the West should butt out, else be held accountable for what follows.  This is not to say Gorby is without a sense of humor, for how else am I to take his remark, “Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia’s territorial integrity,” other than as self-mocking witticism.  Brings tears of laughter to my eyes recalling the Bolshevik-orchestrated Red uprising, invasion and dismemberment of Georgia of 1921-1924 (≈50,000 killed), August Uprising of 1924 (12,578 killed), pre-WWII Stalinist purges of Georgia (≈150,000 killed), the Khrushchev student repression of 1956, and the breakaway repression of 1989 (20 killed, mostly women and children).

Before going on, a few facts are in order.  South Ossetia (the area contended) is a land-locked, resource scarce region the size of Rhode Island; unlikely sustainable as an independent republic pinned between the neighbor with the appetite (Russia) and another that is territorially challenged (Georgia).  Georgia, roughly the size of West Virginia, is barely viable itself, and feels threatened by the ethic erosion Russia has been promoting.  Russia has been arguing, ostensibly, for Ossetian autonomy, but is suspiciously silent regarding the same autonomy for North Ossetians on its side of the border (even more suspicious is that North Ossetians have been strangely silent on reuniting with their kin – indicating a repression greater than Georgia’s).  Russia and Georgia have been in conflict more than a decade over oil & gas transmission through Georgian space.  Georgia wants a better deal and Russia wants to keep the original deal; one that favors Russia.  To have its way Russia has threatened frequent dead-of-winter curtailments of gas & oil to Georgia (and three other former Soviet republics) to maintain its iron control over the price of delivered product.  Europe is also being squeezed by a combination of threats and cheap Russian oil (carrot and stick, emphasis on the stick).  Russia has been stirring the Ossetian pot for some time, belying the notion that Russia is flexing muscle only now in righteous defense of a "free Ossetia."

This is not to say that Georgia has been blameless in the present crisis, and Gorby is right when he says Saakashvili manipulated the West to get some backing, and resorted to force in Ossetia expecting we’d back his play.  But, how does that exonerate Russia for its provocations and attacks; answering violence with a greater violence?  The "here-to-restore-order" and "agent-of-justice" excuses don’t wash because Russia has a long track record that says otherwise.  This invasion, therefore, has less and less to do with Ossetian autonomy, and more to do with punishing Georgian stubbornness.  At best, Russia will leave Ossetia in the lurch once it has what it wants – an obedient Georgia.

Gorby echo is Washington Post writer Dan Froomkin ("Who Poked the Bear?"), who opines, “There doesn't seem to be much President Bush can do about the Russian invasion of Georgia at this point.  Except maybe feel guilty about his role in provoking it.”  You can’t get much more spineless than that.   Standing nose to nose saying “no” to Putin may not be much, Dan, but it is doing "something."  Putin may not blink and may not pull back, but he will hesitate before going further if for no other reason than Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and must now see it through to keep face. The Russian agreement to pull back indicates the Kremlin is at least a little less sure of itself.  We can be pretty certain sitting on our butts pretending nothing happened would not have caused Russia to rethink its action.  Worse, would have convinced Russia no one cared, giving it a green light.  Gorby is right: Bush helped create the sense America might support one side, but wrong which actor misread Bush and America.  Saakashvili came to us, NATO, the U.N. and the West seeking guarantees we would not allow Russia to unilaterally violate Georgian sovereignty, incite separatism, invade a neighbor in contravention of international law using Russian manufactured civil-unrest as the excuse, or carve up Georgia piecemeal; not the other way around.  Gorby blames America, that offers of NATO membership "emboldened" Saakashvili to do something about his separatists, but George Will asks, “If Georgia were in NATO, would NATO now be at war with Russia?”, and answers, “More likely, Russia would not [now] be in Georgia.”

Seems to me I recall Froomkin arguing the opposite when it was our turn to invade a small country: "that it is inexcusable ever going it alone without the full support of the international community."  Where is Froomkin’s demand that Russia get U.N. approval?  Or am I confusing an objective liberal journalist with apologists for radicals, communists, jihadists, tyrants and sundry provocateurs?

* * *

The Baltimore Examiner reports that Maryland businessman Charles Ruppersberger IV is being sued for violating Pennsylvania’s Do-Not-Call law.  Ruppersberger flooded the state with more than a half-million illegal calls, “the largest-ever systematic effort to violate the Do Not Call program since it was created in 2002,” according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.  Ruppersberger and his business are, moreover, unlicensed to sell mortgages in Pennsylvania.  Additionally, Corbett alleges Ruppersberger and Direct Leadsource, Inc. committed numerous other violations of state law using an outsourced (Indian) call service, including: failing to register a telemarketing operation, calling consumers who previously asked not to be called again, calling after 9:00 p.m., failing to identify themselves to consumers, and failing to register fictitious business names with the Pennsylvania Department of State.   Per the lawsuit, Ruppersberger and his company violated Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law, the Telemarketer Registration Act, the Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and Consumer Equity Protection Act, the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act, and the Fictitious Names Act.  The lawsuit seeks full restitution for any consumer who suffered losses as a result of actions that violated the Consumer Protection Law, including civil penalties up to $1,000/violation (up to $3,000/violation involving seniors).  Additionally, the lawsuit asks the court to prevent Ruppersberger or his company from further telemarketing in Pennsylvania until all court-ordered fines and costs are paid.  As brashly reckless as Ruppersberger’s behavior is, that’s not where the story gets interesting.  Ruppersberger’s dad is none other than Maryland Congressman C.A. ‘Dutch’ Ruppersberger (D), who sits on the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee dispensing funds to states for (among other things) consumer protection from scofflaws.  Dutch is on record as a strong supporter of the 2007 "Do-Not-Call Implementation Act," H.R. 395, creating the National Do-Not-Call Registry and incorporating and supporting local registries like Pennsylvania’s.  I don’t know, somehow I just find all this ironic.

* * *

Last week, I reported on the mock-candidacy of the Hollywood Hilton, but have since heard nothing but praise for the "Hilton Energy Policy."  All over the Internet I read remarks like this one: “The scary thing is that her energy plan actually makes sense.”  Elsewhere, the admiration is less equivocal (Paris Hilton's energy plan makes sense); and, if this source is to be believed, even energy analysts are caught up in the Hilton Hoopla.  I even caught myself starting to agree, which is enough to give any reasoning person pause.  What is it about celebrity that makes us want to ascribe god-like wisdom to those who have it?  No doubt we’ll soon be seeing "Paris for President" or "Paris takes Washington by Storm."  If there is anything funnier than serious political-junkies (both sides of the aisle) taking an unserious proposal by the blonde-gotcha even semi-seriously (bravo, Paris!), I can’t remember what it was.  Nonetheless, this seriousness is so infectious I find myself unable to refrain from jumping in with my own two-cents worth (if only to shake folks out of the deer-in-headlights reverie).  So here, for your edification and amusement, is my analysis of the erstwhile analysis:

Let’s see.  Take one from candidate A plus one from candidate B and call it a "hybrid" policy representing the best of each.

I am stunned so many have fallen for this.  Can anyone really claim this makes sense beyond the accidental possibility both (or either) candidates got something right?   The sum total of her "policy" consists of two brief, vague sentences:

. . . do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars . . . the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

How limited, how about on-shore drilling, what areas will be opened up and do they contain actual oil, how strict will oversight be and at what cost and discouragement to drilling, why are tax incentives necessary if hybrids and electric cars are such a bargain, how do you justify sticking it to taxpayers if not, how long can the new areas sustain us, is Peak-Oil occurring or is this an artificial peak caused by environmental restriction or the reluctance of producers to create a glut, is that long enough for replacement systems to kick in (with or without government crash programs), and how does she know this creates more jobs than it displaces?  These only beg the questions she’s touched on.  Missing are a great many questions she hasn’t touched.  For example: which alternatives make the most sense to develop and how independent do they really make us, what is the value of achieving this independence and how does independence answer other challenges facing us (e.g., winning War on Terror), what are the political ramifications to OPEC and Russia of competition and how might they respond, what infrastructure changes are necessary to make the new technologies competitive or even viable, and will foreign oil prospectors challenge our right to off-shore oil and how will that manifest?  And, the big one, how much will all this cost us?   I have been following energy and environmental policies for more than two decades, and have some appreciation that good policy depends on clear, un-politicized understanding.  Does anybody seriously believe Paris has figured out what experts struggle decades to understand?

Detroit will continue to churn out new cars whether they run on oil, compost, or tree sap.  The only new jobs are those created to "meet the emergency;" which is, by definition, temporary and/or exploitative.  Taxing our way out of problems has long been shown to be nothing more than a ruse for making government rich and powerful, with ourselves the poorer, more dependent; yet rarely the wiser for it.   Tax-break incentives are corporate-welfare at taxpayer expense because the taxes lifted from some are shifted onto the rest (government still rakes in the same total).  Similarly, using government to modify behavior rarely alters the behaviors it seeks to suppress; more likely criminalizing those who are unwilling to yield.  About the only thing this really achieves is a) increase the cost of eventual solutions by assuring government a cut, b) creates more public-sector jobs to administer the plunder, and c) redistributes scraps to favored groups.

Energy is generally fungible so long as it isn’t monopolized and there’s enough of it.  Once you get it out of the ground, you have to do something with it or lose money.  OPEC can threaten our supply, but, ultimately, that hurts OPEC more than it punishes us.  Developing our own supply means we become subject to the same dictum, so all we really do is increase the diversity of world supply.  This gives us somewhat greater independence, to be sure, but should not be overstated.  As we increase our production, other players cut back theirs so that the total rate of production remains about the same (supply = demand).  Our own producers cooperate in this game, because it is just as bad having a glut as a shortage (worse from their standpoint).  They will do this until a new, best-price equilibrium is established.  OPEC will certainly do what it can to discourage increased U.S. production, but will do so more as business competitor than political adversary. 

More significant in the long run than independence, drilling improves our trade balance while bringing down the present high cost of fuel.  The first is clear because as a producer, we import less.  The second is less obvious because of the confusion regarding what drives price.   As current supply is adequate and our participation will not significantly change production rates, it is speculation and fear of a shortage that drives current price; and that price is much higher than supply/demand historically suggests it should be.  Alleviate this fear by giving consumers and speculators a sense that they (we) have our own secure source, and prices will fall.  Is this sufficient reason to drill?  I think so, but probably would not persuade people who are convinced we’re "harming the planet" or are stuck in an anti-oil mentality.

I know Paris Hilton has something of an "unfair" reputation of being a complete airhead, but it is also an image she cultivates when it suits her.  I see her more as a kid out of her depth, but one with a bully pulpit.  A surfeit of political-correctness, sensitivity, or fair-play is driving a lot of us to suddenly dismiss the airhead persona as a façade disguising intelligence.  But what has she done to make us think she rates that much deference?  Why, she is a "successful business-woman," we say, and has written two arguably witty books; and, now, she’s given a major political figure a good tweaking.  Yet, her business acumen is 99% market-hype propelled by celebrity.  She made it as a celebrity first and has been fortunate to draw real market-savvy managers in her wake, who, then, use her to make both richer.  Consider: had she not had the Hilton name, not had some seed money, not been a marketable product, and not been a Hollywood icon, would she have succeeded half so well; or would she be just one more soon-to-be-forgotten Hollywood glamour-queen?  Even her misbehaviors serve to enhance this marketability; and, make no mistake, she is the main product.  Similarly, if she hadn’t had someone co-authoring her books, would she have made and stayed on the NYT bestseller list?  In this, she is no different than hundreds of celebrities with co-authored books to their credit. 

On the negative side, we know she was thrown out of high school for repeated misbehavior and had to go back for a GED, did not go to college (though I am sure mommy could have gotten her into Harvard and provided her with tutors), gets into a lot of trouble, turns to mommy whenever in trouble, uncritically bought the animal-rights swear-off the meat thing from watching one, deliberately gruesome activist video, and spends so much time partying, primping and posing it’s a wonder she has time for a business (successful or otherwise).  Does that sound like someone who is more than notionally intelligent?  It sounds to me like a spoiled rich kid who has yet to be tested on her own merits or get her act together.  I doubt she’s as vacuous as she plays to cameras (she couldn’t be and walk & chew gum), but she’s also no Oprah and certainly no candidate for energy czar.  Maybe there’s some intelligence lurking behind the act and maybe not, but not yet.

The real "brilliance" of her energy policy is supplied by those people who read what she said and find no flaw in it.  Finding no fault in it, they then fill in the blanks for her and conclude she actually understood all she said more than superficially.  This is simple transference.  If I say, “The sun rises in the east,” there’s no flaw in that either but also no brilliance.  If you think about it, you’ll realize there is nothing in her proposal that she (or anyone, for that matter) could not have picked up listening to Good Morning America while doing her nails.  It is a medley of the same banal remarks recited endlessly by a host of media types with only slightly better understanding of the issues and economics than hers.

One last point: her policy is not part McCain, part Obama as she suggests.  It is all McCain.  McCain advocates drilling because he’s convinced of an energy emergency and because it decouples our anti-terror effort from oil diplomacy.  McCain buys the environmentalist argument, and will not drill without strict controls and oversight.  McCain also talks of bridging the gap for new technologies to kick in.  McCain, too, talks of tax incentives for development.  McCain claims his policy will make us more energy independent and argues his plan creates new jobs and opportunities.  So Paris can’t even be said to have articulated a policy different from McCain’s (other than hers is less detailed).  The Hilton policy is McCain-lite and the Obama policy is McCain sans drilling.  Obama still puts winning [the presidency] and his social agenda before all; else he’d be opining we drill too.

* * *

That’s the news from Absurdistan.  I hope the news, where you are, is all good.

Culture: General

Read more articles by Bob Stapler