I travelled to New York by car this week and noted that the price of gasoline is well over $3.00 per gallon. Funny, there hasn't been much news about the increase.
The last time gas prices rose to these levels, Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer called for investigations to insure that the oil companies were not price gouging. I wonder why so little news this time around?
Could it be that the Administration and its media and Congressional allies don't want people to focus on any bad economic news? Could it be that despite protestations to the contrary during the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama is just a traditional liberal who thinks the price of gas in the US is too low?
I heard the inflation numbers yesterday. inflation was up at a higher rate than it has been for quite some time. The news report sounded an optimistic note, however. The report stated that if energy and food prices were not included, inflation only went up 1/10th of one percent. Gee, there's some good news. As long as you don't need gasoline or food, you don't have to worry about inflation!
Seriously, though, the increasing price of gasoline is likely well derail any recovery that may be underway. it seems that the price of oil is increasing and will soon reach $100.00/barrel. There is great concern in England and Europe. So far, that concern has not leaked out in the US media. But the fact is we all use gasoline. As the price goes up, the effects will be felt and those effects will not be positive. Keeping quiet about it will not save us (or the Obama administration) from the pain.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
All The World's A Stage
I realize that this post will go against the grain of the way we are supposed to act in the aftermath of the Tuscon tragedy, but I've never been that much of a PC guy anyway.
First, its been stated, ad nauseum, but all of the pundits who felt the need to blame the right for the shooting ought to be ashamed of themselves. They didn't wait to get any facts or even to learn of the final toll of victims. They just seized the opportunity to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, the Tea Party and all of the other "usual suspects" for "inciting" the shooter due to "inflammatory rhetoric". Now that its clear that the shooter was not a right-winger, the lefty pundits have fallen back to their default position, gun control. They never tire of the same old stuff.
Second, the President's speech left me a little cold. Some have said that his speech was not the problem, but the crowd's "pep-rally" reaction that was to blame. But I have to disagree. This President cannot give a significant speech unless he has a large adoring crowd before him. The big difference between President Obama's speech and those given by Presidents Reagan and Clinton regarding the Challenger and Oklahoma City, was the setting. Reagan and Clinton gave their solemn but uplifting speeches from the Oval Office. No cheering crowds for them. Obama had to go to the scene, had to have t-shirts printed with a theme for his speech, had to give the speech in an auditorium. His words were fine, but the setting made the speech more about him than it should have been.
Third, the "no-aisle" idea for the State of the Union is pure BS. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think its high time members of Congress spent their time and energy thinking up solutions to real problems, not trying to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". This idea is nothing but show and is probably part of the Democrats' plan to keep the GOP from really trying to move its agenda. I expect to see efforts to do those things challenged as overly partisan, particularly in light of the "need to heal" after the Tuscon matter. Just do the job you were elected to do; leave the psychology to professionals.
First, its been stated, ad nauseum, but all of the pundits who felt the need to blame the right for the shooting ought to be ashamed of themselves. They didn't wait to get any facts or even to learn of the final toll of victims. They just seized the opportunity to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, the Tea Party and all of the other "usual suspects" for "inciting" the shooter due to "inflammatory rhetoric". Now that its clear that the shooter was not a right-winger, the lefty pundits have fallen back to their default position, gun control. They never tire of the same old stuff.
Second, the President's speech left me a little cold. Some have said that his speech was not the problem, but the crowd's "pep-rally" reaction that was to blame. But I have to disagree. This President cannot give a significant speech unless he has a large adoring crowd before him. The big difference between President Obama's speech and those given by Presidents Reagan and Clinton regarding the Challenger and Oklahoma City, was the setting. Reagan and Clinton gave their solemn but uplifting speeches from the Oval Office. No cheering crowds for them. Obama had to go to the scene, had to have t-shirts printed with a theme for his speech, had to give the speech in an auditorium. His words were fine, but the setting made the speech more about him than it should have been.
Third, the "no-aisle" idea for the State of the Union is pure BS. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think its high time members of Congress spent their time and energy thinking up solutions to real problems, not trying to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". This idea is nothing but show and is probably part of the Democrats' plan to keep the GOP from really trying to move its agenda. I expect to see efforts to do those things challenged as overly partisan, particularly in light of the "need to heal" after the Tuscon matter. Just do the job you were elected to do; leave the psychology to professionals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
