I heard a radio ad for Eric Massa yesterday. The ad dealt with economic issues.
I was struck by the reference to high gasoline prices. Massa's ad described them in a way that would lead a listener to think that Massa believes high gas prices are "bad" and that he will do something about them.
But isn't this just political hypocrisy? The Democratic party champions higher gasoline prices as the vehicle to get people to move to conserve gasoline and move to alternative fuels. The Democrats routinely told us that we should add taxes to the price of gasoline that raised the price even further, so as to achieve environmental goals.
Massa is strongly supported by the national Democratic party. He knows the Dems stands on the environment, offshore drilling, and energy policy in general. So why is he pretending that he will "do something" about high gas prices?
The Answer? Poll driven hypocrisy.
Just as Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama have changed their no drilling tunes in light of overwhelming public opinion, Eric Massa has chosen to try to deceive the public about his true beliefs and to just tell us what he thinks we want to hear.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A Matter Of Perspective
A few random thoughts on media bias:
Yesterday's Democrat & Chronicle contained a story about the Democrats failed attempts to oust Wayne Zyra as President of the Monroe County Legislature. The report discussed the fact that there were several "party line" votes.
So if the votes were all "party line", why is it that the D&C portrays the GOP as the partisan, unyielding party? Have there been any issues where the Democrats came around and sought a compromise? From my perspective, the past few years have been full of partisan maneuvering by both parties. The Democrats intransigence on the sales tax, David Gantt's antics, Bob Duffy's "reservations" about Ren Square all struck me as partisan politics. The D&C didn't think so.
It seems however, that the term "partisanship" only applies to the GOP's actions. The Democrats, being the noble and progressive public servants that they are, only want what's best for the people. Thus their actions are characterised as righteous efforts at thwarting the GOP's malefactions.
On the national scene, the media's treatment of the Edwards sex scandal is similarly instructive. The New York Times and the other big players in the mainstream media, would not even look into the Edwards story, let alone report on it. The msm quickly dismissed the story as a tabloid fairy-tale.
Lets compare that to the story the Times broke about John McCain and his alleged affair with a lobbyist. The Times didn't have a problem reporting on the "fact" that there were rumors of an affair by McCain. So they reported on those rumors while they would not even check the facts on an actual affair by Edwards.
What could the difference be? I guess its a matter of perspective.
Yesterday's Democrat & Chronicle contained a story about the Democrats failed attempts to oust Wayne Zyra as President of the Monroe County Legislature. The report discussed the fact that there were several "party line" votes.
So if the votes were all "party line", why is it that the D&C portrays the GOP as the partisan, unyielding party? Have there been any issues where the Democrats came around and sought a compromise? From my perspective, the past few years have been full of partisan maneuvering by both parties. The Democrats intransigence on the sales tax, David Gantt's antics, Bob Duffy's "reservations" about Ren Square all struck me as partisan politics. The D&C didn't think so.
It seems however, that the term "partisanship" only applies to the GOP's actions. The Democrats, being the noble and progressive public servants that they are, only want what's best for the people. Thus their actions are characterised as righteous efforts at thwarting the GOP's malefactions.
On the national scene, the media's treatment of the Edwards sex scandal is similarly instructive. The New York Times and the other big players in the mainstream media, would not even look into the Edwards story, let alone report on it. The msm quickly dismissed the story as a tabloid fairy-tale.
Lets compare that to the story the Times broke about John McCain and his alleged affair with a lobbyist. The Times didn't have a problem reporting on the "fact" that there were rumors of an affair by McCain. So they reported on those rumors while they would not even check the facts on an actual affair by Edwards.
What could the difference be? I guess its a matter of perspective.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
You and what army: continued
The loss of the West's ability to slow down Russia's assault into Georgia is the topic of a pair of articles in the National Review Online.
In this article, Claudia Rosett writes about the fact that with the U.S. out as global policeman, the "outlaw" nations are likely to start taking more liberties. She echoed my comments of yesterday regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. "response":
"Bush, upon his return from Beijing to Washington, having failed to stop the Russian invasion of Georgia by declaring himself “deeply concerned,” issued a tougher statement in the Rose Garden: That by invading a neighboring state and threatening to overthrow its elected government, Russia has committed an action that is “unacceptable in the 21st century.”
Oh really? While declaring this invasion “unacceptable,” the global community of the 21st century seems prepared to accept it in spades."
In his article, Victor Davis Hanson, has a similar point. He discusses the limits of "soft power". His assessment included the following:
"The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).
From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good."
These articles deeply question the resort to soft power that is so in vogue among "progressives". The American left loves to talk, most of our European "allies" love to talk; the Russians would apparently rather act.
Let's not kid ourselves, Barak Obama is in the soft power camp. If he becomes President, we can expect more "action" by our enemies while we talk ourselves silly.
In this article, Claudia Rosett writes about the fact that with the U.S. out as global policeman, the "outlaw" nations are likely to start taking more liberties. She echoed my comments of yesterday regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. "response":
"Bush, upon his return from Beijing to Washington, having failed to stop the Russian invasion of Georgia by declaring himself “deeply concerned,” issued a tougher statement in the Rose Garden: That by invading a neighboring state and threatening to overthrow its elected government, Russia has committed an action that is “unacceptable in the 21st century.”
Oh really? While declaring this invasion “unacceptable,” the global community of the 21st century seems prepared to accept it in spades."
In his article, Victor Davis Hanson, has a similar point. He discusses the limits of "soft power". His assessment included the following:
"The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).
From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good."
These articles deeply question the resort to soft power that is so in vogue among "progressives". The American left loves to talk, most of our European "allies" love to talk; the Russians would apparently rather act.
Let's not kid ourselves, Barak Obama is in the soft power camp. If he becomes President, we can expect more "action" by our enemies while we talk ourselves silly.
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Drillin' Blues
That may be the name of the fever that is afflicting Liberals when it comes to drilling for oil in the U.S. There is no question that the Libs and the Dems are back on their heels on this issue.
Obama's "nuances" on drilling and oil prices in general have the left in dismay. But what annoys me is the dishonest way liberals portray the issue of whether or not we should drill for more oil in the U. S. Take this New York Times editorial from Sunday's edition. The editorial criticises both candidates views but makes the following statement that has become the left's mantra:
"Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources."
And this op-ed piece by Thomas Freidman, also from the Sunday paper , containing a similar point:
"Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)"
OK, please tell me which Republican politician said we can drill our way out of the crisis? Actually, the GOP has taken the position that we should produce as much oil as we can domestically, while we transition to alternative fuels. The left is so anti-drilling (because they are completely dominated by the environmental extremist crowd) that drilling is a complete taboo. They always sought higher prices so that those prices would force we foolish gas-guzzling Americans to get to alternative fuels (see Friedman's op-ed). And, someone tell the Times, their 3% figure is based on exploration done 20 years ago (since the Dems have even blocked domestic oil exploration). We may have more than we know.
Well, we may be dumb, but we are on to the left on this one. Let's at least get our own oil out of the ground instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.
Obama's "nuances" on drilling and oil prices in general have the left in dismay. But what annoys me is the dishonest way liberals portray the issue of whether or not we should drill for more oil in the U. S. Take this New York Times editorial from Sunday's edition. The editorial criticises both candidates views but makes the following statement that has become the left's mantra:
"Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources."
And this op-ed piece by Thomas Freidman, also from the Sunday paper , containing a similar point:
"Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)"
OK, please tell me which Republican politician said we can drill our way out of the crisis? Actually, the GOP has taken the position that we should produce as much oil as we can domestically, while we transition to alternative fuels. The left is so anti-drilling (because they are completely dominated by the environmental extremist crowd) that drilling is a complete taboo. They always sought higher prices so that those prices would force we foolish gas-guzzling Americans to get to alternative fuels (see Friedman's op-ed). And, someone tell the Times, their 3% figure is based on exploration done 20 years ago (since the Dems have even blocked domestic oil exploration). We may have more than we know.
Well, we may be dumb, but we are on to the left on this one. Let's at least get our own oil out of the ground instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.
Yeah, you and what army?
That is my guess at Russian Premier Vladimir Putin's reaction to President Bush declaring the Russian incursion into Georgia "unacceptable".
Why did Bush bother? There is nothing the U.S. can do except splutter. Russia and China are in the process of eclipsing the U.S. as the premier powers on the planet.
Two things separate those nations from the rest. The first is oil wealth. They are actively drilling for, pumping and selling every drop of oil they can and they are reaping massive profits which fund their aggressive policies.
Oh, and note to Nancy Pelosi:
While you are over here "saving the planet" from our relatively eco-friendly oil production efforts, the Russians and Chinese are sucking the oil from their parts of the Earth with little regard to damage to the environment. And, since we need oil and we won't produce our own, we are paying them to do it.
The second thing that differentiates Russia and China is their willingness to take action they deem in their interest without any regard to world opinion. I have to laugh at the politicians who criticise the U.S. for "unilateral" policies. Most of the time we have, at least, tried to get international support. The Russians and Chinese couldn't care less about "world opinion" or what the U.N. says.
The Russians are playing the old fashioned power politics game in Georgia. They used the "oppressed minority" rationale for their incursion, but they are now widening their attack. Their goal is to oust the pro-American Georgian President and get a puppet government in place that will play ball with Russia. The Russians don't like the fact that there are oil and gas pipelines through Georgia that allow other former Soviet Republics to transport their oil and gas to the west without going through Russia.
It looks like we will soon be accepting the unacceptable once again.
Why did Bush bother? There is nothing the U.S. can do except splutter. Russia and China are in the process of eclipsing the U.S. as the premier powers on the planet.
Two things separate those nations from the rest. The first is oil wealth. They are actively drilling for, pumping and selling every drop of oil they can and they are reaping massive profits which fund their aggressive policies.
Oh, and note to Nancy Pelosi:
While you are over here "saving the planet" from our relatively eco-friendly oil production efforts, the Russians and Chinese are sucking the oil from their parts of the Earth with little regard to damage to the environment. And, since we need oil and we won't produce our own, we are paying them to do it.
The second thing that differentiates Russia and China is their willingness to take action they deem in their interest without any regard to world opinion. I have to laugh at the politicians who criticise the U.S. for "unilateral" policies. Most of the time we have, at least, tried to get international support. The Russians and Chinese couldn't care less about "world opinion" or what the U.N. says.
The Russians are playing the old fashioned power politics game in Georgia. They used the "oppressed minority" rationale for their incursion, but they are now widening their attack. Their goal is to oust the pro-American Georgian President and get a puppet government in place that will play ball with Russia. The Russians don't like the fact that there are oil and gas pipelines through Georgia that allow other former Soviet Republics to transport their oil and gas to the west without going through Russia.
It looks like we will soon be accepting the unacceptable once again.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Thar's Oil In Them Thar Hills!
There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether or not Barack Obama's claim that proper tire inflation would save as much oil as could be obtained by "all that drilling their talking about".
Many Obama defenders have tried to show that Obama was correct by resorting to data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That data dealt only with off-shore drilling in the outer continental shelf. Some have used only the figures for production from ANWR. None offer an analysis using all of the sources of domestic production, because as this PowerLine analysis clearly shows, to do so makes it clear that Obama's math was off the mark.
Obama has started the process of backing off his no drilling stance, however. One thing we can be sure of; Obama can read a poll as well as any politician who ever ran a focus group.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt chimes in with this post regarding Obama's attempts to stand by his "tire inflation = drilling" claim. The money quote:
"The fact that Obama feels the need to cling to an absurd position in the face of the overwhelming rejection of his facts is disquieting. You can stick to unpopular policies because you believe they are correct and will ultimately bring important results, as President Bush has done in Iraq.
But you cannot stick to made up facts and not prompt serious questions about judgment".
Keep after him, Hugh!
Many Obama defenders have tried to show that Obama was correct by resorting to data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That data dealt only with off-shore drilling in the outer continental shelf. Some have used only the figures for production from ANWR. None offer an analysis using all of the sources of domestic production, because as this PowerLine analysis clearly shows, to do so makes it clear that Obama's math was off the mark.
Obama has started the process of backing off his no drilling stance, however. One thing we can be sure of; Obama can read a poll as well as any politician who ever ran a focus group.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt chimes in with this post regarding Obama's attempts to stand by his "tire inflation = drilling" claim. The money quote:
"The fact that Obama feels the need to cling to an absurd position in the face of the overwhelming rejection of his facts is disquieting. You can stick to unpopular policies because you believe they are correct and will ultimately bring important results, as President Bush has done in Iraq.
But you cannot stick to made up facts and not prompt serious questions about judgment".
Keep after him, Hugh!
Foreclosure Fallout
Governor Paterson signed new foreclosure legislation into law today. While most commentators have focused on the foreclosure provisions, the law also amended provisions of the Banking Law restricting many practices which many analysts deem responsible for the "sub-prime" crisis.
The part of the bill that restricts foreclosures will certainly ease some of the problems caused by the large number of defaults which have been occurring. The new law requires additional notice and pre-foreclosure work-out efforts. It also calls for conferences after foreclosures begin to give defaulting borrowers every chance to maintain their homes.
The restrictions on lending practices will, however, lead to an almost complete loss of mortgage money for lower-income New Yorkers. There is no doubt that weakened underwriting standards contributed to increased defaults, however, those relaxed standards were encouraged by "advocates" for lower income borrowers who had been "left out" of the housing boom. Now lenders will shy away from any borrower without prime credit ratings. That is being called proper business practice, in today's situation, but 10-15 years ago, lenders sticking to strict underwriting standards were called red-liners and racists.
The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. I remain concerned about the long-term impact on New York's economy.
The part of the bill that restricts foreclosures will certainly ease some of the problems caused by the large number of defaults which have been occurring. The new law requires additional notice and pre-foreclosure work-out efforts. It also calls for conferences after foreclosures begin to give defaulting borrowers every chance to maintain their homes.
The restrictions on lending practices will, however, lead to an almost complete loss of mortgage money for lower-income New Yorkers. There is no doubt that weakened underwriting standards contributed to increased defaults, however, those relaxed standards were encouraged by "advocates" for lower income borrowers who had been "left out" of the housing boom. Now lenders will shy away from any borrower without prime credit ratings. That is being called proper business practice, in today's situation, but 10-15 years ago, lenders sticking to strict underwriting standards were called red-liners and racists.
The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. I remain concerned about the long-term impact on New York's economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
