I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours

Alexandra Pelosi's videos highlighting the difficulties in each of the parties came with some predictable commentary from Maher. However, the keeper was not that Maher couldn't excuse and apologize for the riff-raff in his camp fast enough, but his assertion that he or Alexandra could not possibly be racist.



Who can know if they are, but to suggest that giving money to the Obama Super PAC or that being the daughter of Rep. Pelosi somehow obviates racism is silly - no stupid. Has there never been a son or daughter of anyone who had different views than their parents? Would he sit in wonderment if an upstanding northerner had a child who had racist beliefs?

Maher didn't seem to think that contributing to or voting for Herman Cain undid any racist tendencies of Republicans.

14 May 2011: "Republicans say they love [Herman Cain] so they're not racist - right"
11 June 2011: Gingrich is Republican 'Polling Behind a Black Guy'
7 Oct 2011: In Modern Republican Party ‘Denying Racism Is The New Racism’
21 Oct 2011: Panel discusses denying racism resists is the "new racism" and how "stupid" Herman Cain is

And one must wonder, for all of the sniffing at the idea that he or she could possibly be racist, isn't his open admission that he has lower standards for blacks clear evidence the he may in fact be racist - his protestations notwithstanding. For as we know from the links above, when a Republican says he is not a racist, it is proof positive that he is.

Just another classic example of the stunning lack of self-awareness on the left.

Gimme, Gimme

Student says free birth control would make her happy.

Notable Quotable

The ability for an individual to do evil is infinitely greater than an individual's ability to do good.

~ Dennis Prager

Competing Religions

The Judeo-Christian mindset is, "What do I owe my fellow man."  The leftist mindset is, "What does my fellow man owe me." 

Another way to say this is that the religious are concerned with obligations and the leftist is concerned with rights.  One is outward facing while the other is inward facing.  One is selfless while the other is selfish. 

Neither group is absolutely one or the other, but these are more an undercurrent and guide the externalities of each group.  Each group's view of governance is informed by these tendencies. 

Voter ID

The voting ID issue is paradigmatic of the left/right difference. The right wants to elevate the citizen to standards and the left wants to obliterate standards and bring the citizen down.

It also shows the contempt that the left has for their constituents. Are Hispanics in Texas less capable than a white? Does the left have the same set of standards for whites as Hispanics, blacks or the young? And because it is difficult for somebody to obtain ID, the left then abandons all standards for everybody rather than dignify those who struggle by making sure they can rise to the standard.

There is dignity in achieving a minimum standard for voting that ALL citizens must meet. Among other things, this fight against IDs abolishes dignity.

Also, isn't it insulting for other Hispanics who can figure out how to get an ID to have leftists lump all Hispanics together by race? An individual may struggle to get an ID. But that doesn't mean all members of a race have difficulty. Why isn't this thought to be as racist as one can get?

One must legitimately ask whether those on the left believe that a white person is somehow more capable of getting an ID than those groups they say have difficulty. If they say, "Yes, whites can get an ID to vote, but it is difficult for group x," then they must hold whites in higher esteem since they believe that whites can achieve a higher standard. How would the left finish the sentence, "We can't expect a Hispanic to get an ID because..."?

You won't get what you don't expect.

It is repugnant and shameful.

Notable Quotable

The left doesn't come to a debate to debate or have a discussion about ideas. The left comes to a debate to end the debate.

Misogyny of the left.

The DC helps ferret out the respectful thoughts about women from the left.  Not a great testimony on their behalf.

Oil Companies Earn Billions. No S#!%.

Think Progress posted a threadbare canard of the left - "big oil" is reaping obscene profits. The ideas posited in the article are so hackneyed as to be wearisome. Yes "big oil" makes big profits, because they sell billions of units of product. Apparently simple math is not the strong suit of the authors. And they show contempt for the reader when they assume the reader won’t see through the demagoguery or that the reader is too stupid to do the math for themselves.

To ensure that we are all on the same page, a review of some basic mathematics may be in order. In case the authors are unaware, a mathematical concept has been developed that may help the authors understand what is going on here – it is called percentages. And it is percentages that can help us to understand what to make of the "outrageous profits" – that is, if we are really interested in understanding the profits in context.

If a manufacturer builds 50 TVs per year and it costs $300 in parts, labor and overhead to build the TVs and he then sells them for $600, is that an outrageous profit? If consumers are happy to pay $600 for the TV because of the perceived added value to their lives, then whether it is outrageous or not, they may pay that amount. However, that is a 100% profit.

If that same manufacturer sells the TV for $323.70 is that an outrageous profit? Is 7.9% fairer? Less outrageous? 7.9% is about what "big oil" makes on average in profit. This is less than periodical publishers (53.1%), software companies (23.2%), cigarette makers (22.5%), beverage brewers (20.3%), railroads (15.5%), agricultural chemical manufacturers (15.2%), soft drink canners (15%), makers of toys and games (9.7%) and specialty eateries (9.2%). (Source: Yahoo!, 12 Mar 2012)

(For scale, it is worth considering that he would have to make over 4,200 units, or about 2 per hour working 8 hrs/day, in order to see his first $100k in profits – that comes after paying salaries and benefits to employees, rent/mortgage, light, heat, property taxes, maintenance, etc., etc., etc. and before reinvestment in new equipment, research, et al.)

But if the TV guy (who at some ordained quantity, only known by leftists, stops being a decent producer of needed goods and becomes demonic, "big TV") sold ten million TVs – which assumes he can even produce ten million – at 7.9% profit, he would report an obscene profit of $237 million. These enormous earnings would translate to $2 billion in profit over ten years. "That’s right, a profit figure with" 9 "zeros – count them:" $2,000,000,000. This demagogic slight of hand employed by the authors might be humorous if it weren’t so contemptuous and tendentious. It assumes the reader is too stupid to understand or too partisan or care that no matter what the total dollar amount of the profit, the percentage is well below many other industries. Only those lacking a basic high school education or the Kool Aid drinker would be taken in by such a specious presentation of the data.

Any company that is producing something will necessarily maximize profits for the shareholders. However, this is limited by how much a buyer is willing to pay. Oil companies, like most companies, are price takers, not price setters. If a TV manufacturer decides to include a 100% profit in the price of its TV, the buyer may decide that the added value of having a TV in the home is not worth the price. This desire to price 'set' is mitigated by the market when another company sells the product cheaper – maybe deciding to produce the product with less profit. The second company can undercut the competition and gain a larger portion of the market share. This will have the effect of driving down prices at the first company if they want to stay in business. The business then 'takes' the price that the market allows.

If the consumer sees sufficient self-benefit in the exchange, he will pay an additional sum that is profit for the business because he acknowledges that the business is able to provide the good or service in a more efficient manner than the consumer could. This is the tacit acknowledgment of comparative advantage. The cost of a good or service can be lowered because of specialization, economy of scale, division of labor and other factors that lower production costs and increase productivity. Profit is not necessarily bad. It can be an indicator that the consumer is willing to pay for efficiently produced, low-cost goods and services. And barring corruption, large profits are likely the result of someone, or some group, finding a way to increase production in a way that reduces production costs thereby increasing the profit margin. It is quite simplistic and utterly lacking nuance to think that profit equals theft.

So even though you might be able to build your own house by doing the framing, plumbing, electrical, roofing, concrete, heating and air conditioning, window installation, insulation, cabinetry, sheet rock, texturing, flooring, landscaping, etc, by yourself, you also might be willing to pay each of these specialty trades a bit of profit to do the work because you may not possess the skill, tools, time, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the tasks. And even when paying them the profit you may still conclude that it is advantageous because they do it so much more efficiently than you could. And when larger companies do this on a larger scale they make larger profits. This is really all the article highlighted, albeit smugly. Well, duh.

Oil is a fungible product and its price is largely determined by the world oil market. However, additional supply can bring down prices just as increased demand can raise prices. The former is acknowledged by leftists when they propose that prices would drop if supply is increased via the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The article laments that a certain oil industry leader "opposes selling a small amount of reserve oil from the nearly full U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices, which would provide some relief to drivers." So, apparently, even small increases in supply can create downward movement of prices to the tune of 18 to 72 cents per gallon. But when conservatives expand this idea to "drill baby drill", it is debunked as the cackling of simpletons. To the leftist mind, a "small," one time infusion from the SPR have miraculous effects on price while large infusions from ANWR or the Keystone pipeline wouldn't change a thing.

The article states, "It makes absolutely no sense to remain susceptible to a volatile global oil market. Instead we need to reduce our dependence on oil, which is priced globally and partly set by the OPEC cartel." I think most Americans would agree to that. But many think that bolstering domestic production might be a sensible part of a larger solution. And that doesn't make them a bunch of wackos.

As for speculators, they speculate based on their assessment of the future markets and geopolitical conditions. They assess conditions and speculate on the future – it is a risky business. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Why doesn’t anybody cry for them when they lose?

The futures market isn’t necessarily a bad construct. It can moderate the price and risk of commodities and reduce uncertainty. An airline can reduce risk by locking in fuel prices with futures. Otherwise, ticket prices would jump around in response to the spot market. Would that be better?

And then there is the oil lobby. I bet the authors couldn't muster so much as a yawn when thinking about the amount of money labor unions spend on lobbying and campaign contributions. But who can blame them. It would undermine their demagoguery. 

Misogynists of the Left Unite

Good point Kirsten Powers:

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh.  But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

Jonah Goldberg compares the comparison to Joe the Plumber as well.  "The Democrats were unrestrained in their efforts to ridicule the man."  He continued:

When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes -- if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured and treated to corrosive media skepticism.

Only the left is unaware of the lack of self-awareness on the left.

Linzen on AGW

The Telegraph reports on Linzen's presentation to the House of Commons.  

One of the zingers by Linzen:

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.