July 8-9, 2008
Jul 08 03:25 Crisis Of Choice's Hidden Impact Jul 08 11:27 Franken's 'No-Solutions' Solution On Energy Jul 08 12:36 Today's Obama Must Reading Jul 08 13:19 Censorship Alert Jul 08 14:08 Tinklenberg Supports Threats & Intimidations? Jul 09 11:18 Harry Reid On Energy: Running On Empty???
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Crisis Of Choice's Hidden Impact
Michele Bachmann, my representative in the US House, has a great post up on her blog highlighting the 'hidden impact' of the Democrats' crisis of choice:
The MACCRAY School District that makes up the towns of Maynard, Clara City, and Raymond in western Minnesota is switching to a four day school week .This isn't the only budget that'll be strained by high gas prices. It's just one of many. Cities like St. Cloud will pay more to clear roads after snofalls. MnDOT will pay more for clearing roads, too.
Why the switch?
Like everyone else these days, the price of fuel is blowing their budget. The district says it will save $65,000 out of a $7 million budget with the shortened week.
That's before we start talking about the impact high gas prices are having on commodities like groceries. That's before we talk about how these prices are impacting OTR truckers. That's before we discuss how much high prices are hurting farmers.
Despite all the people and industries this is affecting, Democrats stubbornly refuse to increase oil production. They've chosen their allies and it isn't consumers. Their allies are the special interests. They've chosen the environmentalists who want gas prices even higher.
When the test was "the people vs. the powerful", Democrats sided with the powerful environmentalist lobby. When Democrats had the opportunity to side with 60+ percent of the American people who want drilling to start ASAP, Democrats chose to side with their environmentalist allies. Their environmentalist allies might comprise 20 percent of America's voters on their very best day.
Here's an editorial in my hometown SC Times arguing against oil exploration on the OCS:
Offshore drilling is extremely expensive and jeopardizes important sources of seafood.I think more people are worried about filling their tanks with modestly priced gas than they're worried about "important sources of seafood." This shows how out of whack the environmentalists' priorities are.
That's the only proof I need that it's time to whack some sense back into them.
Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008 3:29 AM
Comment 1 by jollyroger at 08-Jul-08 07:24 AM
How do you do, freedom
Feeling trapped?
Are those handcuffs?
Oh no, they're not mind locked?
???
Freedom, free e dom, fr-eee-dom, FREEDOM! What actually is it? A concept, a reality, a belief, a fiction, a paradox, the meaning of life, the great invention, an unattainable ideal, just for starters. Getting to the bottom of it involves firstly climbing the mountain that it is. Makes you feel like a bookish Bear Grylls.
...more at lifestyleguides.blogspot.com
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-Jul-08 09:34 AM
Try telling that fishy story to Louisiana fishermen, or try taking out those offshore oil wells, and you'll find yourself being used for chum in a big hurry. Those "artificial reefs" are a boon to biodiversity and fisheries!
Of course, it's all just one more excuse cooked up by the loony Greenies to "preserve" something that they'll never use and that isn't being threatened.
The only reason these lunatics ever get a sizable proportion of the population believing them is because of the major media outlets trumpeting this silliness. It takes something like $4 gas to get a majority to notice that the emperor has no brain.
Comment 3 by kb at 08-Jul-08 04:04 PM
Gary, you missed the best part of that SCT editorial. In fact coral reefs grow like crazy on rig platforms and the amount of fishing available and done there goes UP, not down. Come read about the Helldivers' Rodeo.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova71.html
Franken's 'No-Solutions' Solution On Energy
Al Franken talked with the Bemidji Pioneer's Brad Swenson about his supposed solutions to high gas prices. Frankly, it's the closest thing I've seen to a non-solution solution. Here's Franken's solution as reported in the Bemidji Pioneer:
In the short term, Franken would look to a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, with the money going to alternative energy research and in tax breaks to low-income and middle-income families struggling with energy bills, probably by adding more money to the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program.There isn't a self-respecting economist that would take this so-called plan seriously. It does nothing to bring down prices. As for the profits that speculators are making, the only solution is increase oil production.
He'd also end government subsidies to oil companies. And he wants to study the effect of speculation on oil futures trading, which some say are driving prices up.
We didn't hear a peep about speculators in the late 1990s when approximately 9 million more barrels of oil were produced daily than was consumed. That's because there wasn't anything to speculate about. That's because people knew that the market could absorb a little shock.
The cushion between what's being used and what's being produced is 1.5 million barrels a day. That's a tiny margin. Now there's a rational explanation for speculators bidding up the prices. Speculators drive prices up anytime Ahmadinejad threatens Israel. Speculators drive prices up anytime dictator Chavez talks about cutting production. Speculators drive prices up anytime a tropical storm develops in the Gulf.
That's a structurally unstable pattern to maintain. Simply put, that's a recipe for disaster.
I've said before that this answer could've come from any Democrat. It's like they're wind-up dolls. If you wind up the Franken doll, this is the answer it's programmed to transmit. If you wind up the Klobuchar doll, you'll get the same programmed reply. If you wind up the Tinklenberg doll, he'll spew the same non-solutions solutions as the Klobuchar or Franken dolls said. For that matter, you'd get the same rehearsed lines from the Walz doll, too.
Compare that with Sen. Coleman's proposed legislation. Here's what Sen. Coleman told a group of Rochester business leaders:
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman told a group of Rochester businessmen Wednesday that the United States can bring down the price of gasoline by opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration as part of a broad mix of energy options.Based on that reporting, I think it's justifiable to say that Coleman isn't restricted by the environmentalist lobby's every demand. I can't say that about Franken and Klobuchar, Walz and Tinklenberg. They can't march to their own drummer. They're restricted to what the environmentalist lobby limits them to.
Coleman, a Republican who is seeking a second term in the U.S. Senate, also predicted that the clamor from a public battered by the soaring price of gasoline, now hovering at $4 a gallon, will lead to a bipartisan consensus on the need to drill off the nation's coasts.
"Right now, we're being held hostage to Saudi sheiks and thugs and tyrants like (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, because we don't have the options. It's like fighting a fight with one hand tied behind your back," Coleman said.
That's why I disagree slightly with Sen. Coleman when he says that "$4 a gallon [gas] will lead to a bipartisan consensus on the need to drill off the nation's coasts." I think they'd (Democrats) agree that that's needed in private but I don't believe that they'd say that in public for fear of having the enironmentalists drying up their campaign contribution spigot.
There's one last thing I must say before finishing this post: Increasing the tax burden on oil companies won't bring prices down at the pump. Ending government subsidies to oil companies won't bring prices down at the pump, either.
Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008 11:27 AM
No comments.
Today's Obama Must Reading
You know it isn't going well with the Obama campaign gets ridiculed by Bob Herbert and Rich Lowry , then gets ridiculed by Tom Bevan. Tom's post is today's must reading on the Obama campaign's futile ploy to appeal to blue collar voters.
Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008 12:38 PM
No comments.
Censorship Alert
According to The Bachmann Blog's latest post , Rep. Michael Capuano, (D-MA), wants to make blogging congresscritters go through a process before being permitted to post on blogs or YouTube. Here's a portion of Rep. Capuano's letter to Rep. Brady, (D-PA), chair of the Committee on House Administration:
As you are aware, current CHA regulations have been interpreted to prohibit Members from posting official content outside the .gov domain. Unfortunately, many members who wish to display vidoe on their websites have found that the existing tools available within the House to do so are not user-friendly or efficient, and in that addition, server storage space within the House is insufficient to meet the growing demand for video. The House Leadership and your committee began to examine solutions to this situation last year and the Franking Commission recently engaged in detailed discussions of possible solutions. Specifically, we discussed the ongoiong effort to establish designated House "channels" on external sites. This would allow a Member to post video on a qualifying external site and then embed the video on his or her Member site from this external site. The concept of an "official" external channel has been adopted by other government agencies and it could be available to the House in short order if the relevant CHA regulations and practice is amended.Here's another key portion of Rep. Capuano's letter:
To the maximum extent possible, the official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House's compliance guidelines.That last section sounds eerily close to censorship. Each representative reports to We The People, not the Franking Commission or the Committee on House Administration. The information that Michele Bachmann or Eric Cantor posts on their blogs or on YouTube is information about the people's business.
Rep. Capuano's suggestion that this be regulated in any way is an assualt on a legislator's ability to communicate with his/her constituents. That's totally unacceptable. Any attempt to regulate, restrict or inhibit electronic forms of communication between a legislator and their constituents is a potential restriction on a constituent's right to know.
We The People won't stand for that.
Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 09-Jul-08 06:43 PM
just think. A person who is at least 25 years old, probably a college graduate, needs to be told what website they can post on to try to communicate with voters.
Get real Nancy. So you can communicate on the Huffinton Post, but not the NRA's post.
What are you going to do with the members who don't respect your list?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Beth Plymale at 12-Jul-08 03:23 PM
I am embarrassed to admit that I was once a Democrat. Shennanigans like this are why I no longer am a member of that party.
Tinklenberg Supports Threats & Intimidations?
After seeing the YouTube video that Michael posted , I'm wondering whose side El Tinklenberg is on, the unions' side or the employees' side. Here's the video:
As you heard, Tinklenberg's response to the questioner was that "the threats were from the employer side."
Here's the transcript of the video:
Questioner: I just wanted to know where you stood on the card check issue.What proof does Mr. Tinklenberg have that the "intimidation has been on the employers' side"? That's a pretty serious accusation to make. Based on his rush to redeploy away from this questioner, I'm betting that he doens't have proof that the "intimidation has been on the employers' side." I'm betting that it was just a cheapshot at business owners in an attempt to pander to union votes.
Tinklenberg: I support it.
Questioner: Are you concerned at all...there's been some rumors about people who have opposed the card check have been intimidated by the union to enforce this limit on the cards. What do you think should be done about that?
Tinklenberg: As I said before, i support it.
Questioner: Even though there's intimidation, Sir?
Tinklenberg: The intimidation has been on the employers' side.
Frankly, that's a foolish side to be on. I can't imagine employees like the thought of threats and intimidations forcing them to make workplace decisions like that in public. In fact, I'd bet that the thought of threats from union leaders is extremely unappealing to those employees.
Originally posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008, revised 23-Dec 10:57 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 08-Jul-08 02:48 PM
What proof does Tinklenberg have? If you are going to ask that, why aren't you asking what proof the questioner has about union intimidation? He claims there are "rumors" without providing any substance and you don't jump down his throat.
This organization has no interest in helping workers. Their interest is in demonizing unions to keep workers from considering them as a tool to better wages, benefits, and security.
Comment 2 by AAA at 08-Jul-08 05:15 PM
I guess I am just clairvoyant.
http://www.residualforces.com/2008/06/26/tinklenberg-video-on-freedom-to-goon/
I had this weeks ago. :D
Comment 3 by Political Muse at 08-Jul-08 09:25 PM
He's right, Gary. I saw this on Residual Forces awhile ago.
Harry Reid On Energy: Running On Empty???
Based on this Politico.com article , it's looking like reality is setting in on moderate Democrats. Ben Nelson, (D-NE), is working on a 'Gang of 14' style coalition. If Sen. Nelson succeeds, he will have successfully undercut Harry Reid's authority in the Senate.
Back from an Independence Day recess that saw gas prices peak at more than $4.10 per gallon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that he's hoping to entice a handful of Democrats to join him in supporting more domestic drilling, and an aide to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said it may be time for a new "Gang of 14" to break through the partisan impasse on energy issues.Even if this coalition is put together and a bill is passed, that doesn't mean the House will give the Senate bill a minute of consideration. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel are too smart to let a bill that increases oil production come up for a vote even in committee. They know that such a vote would upset their environmentalist allies, causing the environmentalists to turn off their campaign contribution spigot.
GOP senators believe that a number of moderate Democrats would be open to legislation that balances increased energy exploration with conservation. If they're right, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could lose their grip on energy policy, and the Republicans could score a major coup on the No. 1 issue on the minds of voters.
At least five Senate Democrats support more domestic oil and gas exploration, and McConnell is sweetening the deal to make the sale to other moderates: The Kentucky Republican is pushing a package of incentives to boost conservation as well as a measure creating stricter enforcement of commodities markets in exchange for more offshore oil and gas drilling.
If the pro-production bill passes the Senate, though, I'd expect the House GOP to file a discharge petition to bring it to a vote. If Democrats refuse to sign that petition, that will be used against them in this fall's election.
I like the fact that Sen. McConnell is working with people like Ben Nelson. This is a perfect way of undercutting Sen. Reid.
Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2008 11:19 AM
No comments.
