SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (79441)5/4/2010 12:23:42 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
Palin and the Leftist Elites

By Mark W. Hendrickson
Talkzilla

Sarah Palin is one of the most intriguing (and polarizing) personalities to emerge on the national political stage in a long time. The way that many conservatives embrace her and many liberals vilify her illustrates in microcosm the yawning political divide in America today.

We can draw insights about Palin's significance in America today from a trio of three markedly disparate historical figures: Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the Gospel of Matthew's King Herod. The connection between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan is fairly simple and straightforward. They share conservative convictions and a special gift of communication. Palin is reminiscent of Reagan in the way she resonates, inspires, and energizes conservatives.

Less apparent are the links that may be drawn between Palin and the long-departed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises -- and Palin and the much-longer-ago-departed King Herod.

The connection between Palin and Mises occurred to me while rereading Mises' 1944 book Bureaucracy. Mises wrote, "...the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors." Indeed, Marx, Lenin, et al., were intellectuals, and the leaders of socialism have been relatively well-to-do educated folks like Bill Ayers, not salt-of-the-earth blue-collar folks.

Mises continued this insight with a penetrating passage that is uncannily relevant today:

<<< The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. >>>

And what is the antidote to the grim utopian schemes of leftist intellectuals and politicians? According to Mises, "Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords." In other words, people as down-to-earth and common-sensical as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

Indeed, the fury directed against Palin by leftists is so overwrought, and at times maniacal, precisely because her innate common sense is so powerful and effective when she dares to declare that the emperor of government economic planning has no clothes. Like Mises and Reagan, Palin understands with utter (and to leftists, frightening) clarity that leftist utopias have no practicality or viability, but are, in Mises' words, "illusory fantasies."

Like most people, self-important intellectuals don't like their cherished dreams and aspirations dismissed as fantasies. What really agitates them, though, is that they remember how effective that attractive, winsome fellow from non-elite Eureka College was in explaining how counterproductive, inefficient, and ultimately destructive Big Government is. Now intellectuals on the left are scared to death that the attractive, winsome gal from the non-elite University of Idaho has the same convictions as Reagan and the same common sense that Mises identified as the antidote to socialist nostrums.

The left can't stand the fact that Palin, like Reagan, isn't one of them. Like Reagan, she is not an "intellectual." She doesn't share what Thomas Sowell dubbed "the vision of the anointed" -- progressive elitists' unshakable faith in their grandiose plans for regimenting our lives. To leftist intellectuals, it's okay to have a president who thinks he visited 57 states, a vice president who has claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on television to calm the people after the stock market crash of 1929 (no TV yet, and Hoover was president) and a Speaker of the House who has insisted that we must switch from fossil fuels to natural gas. All ignorance, error, and mental dullness can be forgiven as long as one subscribes to the political catechism, "The government must control economic activity." What is unacceptable, even evil, to them is someone like Palin who doesn't subscribe to the same catechism, who just doesn't "get it."

Here is where Herod the Great enters the story. We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Herod feared any threat to his power; thus his vile order to slaughter male babies in the hope of killing off the one with the potential to mature into a leader who would threaten his hegemony. The political left is a modern Herod, desperate to halt Sarah Palin's political career now, before she can grow more formidable and possibly develop into her generation's Reagan.

Indeed, it has been amazing to see the scorn, vitriol, and even hatred, directed toward this woman who dares to defy the left's narrow, preconceived notions of what political positions a female politician should be allowed to hold. It was comical to see how Democrats fell all over each other to distort Palin's autobiographical Going Rogue as an attack on John McCain. Why would Democrats rush to defend one Republican from an (alleged) attack by another Republican? Might it have something to do with the fact that they perceive McCain as a "good Republican" -- one who will compromise and cuts deals -- where Palin would not?

I have no idea what the future holds for Sarah Palin. It is indisputable, though, that the left regards her as their worst nightmare -- an articulate, attractive, effective communicator and advocate of conservative principles with Misesian common sense and Reaganesque potential. That is why she is the object of their Herod-like verbal thrusts today.

Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy at the College's Center for Vision & Values.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (79441)5/4/2010 12:38:56 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Yes, Keep Drilling

By: The Editors
National Review Online

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico threatens to do as much damage to U.S. energy policy as it has to the environment. Obama’s weeks-old executive order allowing for limited coastal exploration -- which we never considered a sure thing -- has been stayed and will probably be rescinded. There will be budgetary considerations as federal dollars are used to clean up the Gulf. And there will be legal concerns: What kind of responsibility do BP and Transocean bear?

The answers to the policy questions will depend on the extent of the damage and on the most important factual question: How did this happen? Others already have observed, correctly, that the risks involved in drilling off the coast of the United States are small in proportion to those involved in shipping oil across the ocean or drilling off the coasts of countries that do not treat safety and environmental standards with our own degree of care.

Oil remains the most cost-effective source of transportation fuel we have; as long as our economy is thriving, we will need to produce or import a lot of it. Global-warming alarmists and zealous proponents of alternative energy have already made the BP spill the new Exhibit A in their case against fossil fuels. In evaluating their claims, we should be mindful of the economic and environmental costs of the spill relative to those associated with their preferred alternatives.

Consider the cost of cap-and-trade legislation, for instance. It’s hard to know what the economic damages of this spill will be, but even if they exceed the estimated $7 billion that it cost to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill, that would still be a far cry from the estimated $161 billion annual hit to GDP that would result from enactment of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. On the environmental side of the ledger, will the damages from this spill outweigh the thousands of birds killed in wind turbines each year? Possibly. How about the slashing and burning of thousands of acres of rain forest that come as a result of ethanol subsidies? We doubt it.

It should also be noted that the rig in question was built to drill at depths of over a mile. Deep-water drilling is a newer technology, and this episode demonstrates that we still have a lot to learn about the associated risks. BP and Transocean will be saddled with enormous costs in the wake of this disaster, and investors in these rigs will think twice before putting money into similar projects in the future. In other words, the market will act as a check on deep-water exploration practices. At this time, it is not obvious that any new regulation would serve any purpose other than to let politicians claim that they’ve “done something” in response to the accident. As usual, overreaction is a significant danger: The reaction to Three Mile Island set the development of safe and clean nuclear power back for a generation.

As for the administration’s now-it’s-lifted, now-it’s-not drilling ban, most of the exploration and drilling that would take place if Obama actually followed through would be located in shallower coastal waters. The safety record of shallow-water drilling remains very impressive, and this deep-water calamity neither tarnishes that record nor indicates that it couldn’t be duplicated if Obama opened more of the coastline to exploration. In any case, the president’s moratorium on new drilling is a self-defeating proposition: New rigs will take years to construct and to begin production; their safeguards will incorporate whatever lessons we learn from the investigation of this catastrophe. If there is any present danger of further damage, it comes from existing operations, which the president, who has good political reasons to dread a spike in the price of oil, does not at the moment propose to restrict.

A word on conspiracy theories: It is unfortunate that the timing of this event, coming so soon after the administration’s drilling order, has led some commentators (of varying degrees of seriousness) to entertain some outlandish scenarios. The environmental movement did not sabotage the rig to further its agenda, nor did Big Oil do it to create artificial scarcity in the market for crude. Disasters happen, and this is one.

But it is not one that should not reorder our thinking when it comes to energy production. “Drill, baby, drill,” has lost whatever usefulness it may have had as a slogan, but offshore drilling remains a crucial source of energy -- and clearing obstacles to future exploration is still part of the right policy mix.


.



To: Sully- who wrote (79441)5/4/2010 12:58:06 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Former NOAA oil spill cleanup boss says Obama waited too long in Gulf disaster

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
05/02/10 5:41 PM EDT

Why didn't federal officials implement an oil spill clean up plan they've had on the books since 1994 as soon as possible after crude began pumping into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion and sinking of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling platform 53 miles south of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico?

The Mobile Register reports that Ron Gouget, who formerly managed the oil spill cleanup department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as a similar unit for the state of Louisiana, is criticizing the Obama White House's failure to act according to existing government plans in the event of a spill in the area now being deluged with thousands of barrels of crude oil every day.

Gouget said when he was at NOAA, the agency created a plan that required burning off an oil spill in the region in its earliest stage, if the prevailing winds would not push the smoke and soot from the operation inland. The plan is still in effect, but was not activated last week by NOAA.

"They had pre-approval. The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away instead of waiting ten days to get permission," Gouget told the Register. "If you read the pre-approval plan, it speaks about Grand Isle, where the spill is. When the wind is blowing offshore out of the north, you have preapproval to burn in that region. If the wind is coming onshore, like it is now, you can't burn at Grand Isle. They waited to do the test burn until the wind started coming onshore."

When the Register asked Gouget why federal officials waited for a week before conducting even a test burn, he said, "Good question. Maybe complacency was the biggest issue. They probably didn't have the materials on hand to conduct the burn, which is unconscionable."

Gouget told the Registe that NOAA officials at the Unified Command Center in Louisiana know how to respond to spills, and know burning should have started as soon as possible after the initial release was detected. He also speculated that they may have been prevented from doing so by higher officials.

"It may have been a political issue. The burn would make a big big plume and lots of soot. Like Valdez, the decisions to get the resources mobilized may not have occurred until it was too late," Gouget told the Register. "This whole thing has been a daily strip tease. At first they thought it was just the diesel, then they said the well wasn't leaking. It's unfortunate they didn't get the burning going right away. They could have gotten 90 percent of the oil before it spread."

You can read the full Register story here.

Meanwhile, Doug Ross, who first directed my attention to the Register story, further points out that much of the White House response thus far seems calculated to make trial lawyers happy, not find a solution to the crisis:


<<< "But the White House response has consisted of dispatching lawyers to New Orleans and shutting down other rigs that have nothing to do with the BP disaster. On April 30th - 10 days after the catastrophic explosion - the oil and gas news site RigZone reported that the White House had forbidden new drilling." >>>


You can read the rest of Doug's post here.

And by the way, has nobody thought to ask the White House about the possibility of environmental terrorism being involved in this disaster? After all, the Environmental Liberation Front has been cited as a significant domestic terrorism threat by the FBI as recently as 2008.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (79441)5/4/2010 3:49:19 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Gulf Spill: Obama There 'Since Day One'? Maybe Not

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- To hear Obama administration officials tell it, they've been fully engaged on the Gulf Coast oil spill since Day One, bringing every resource to bear and able to ensure without question that taxpayers will be protected.

Not quite.

Take President Barack Obama's repeated claims that BP will be responsible for all the costs associated with the devastating spill that began after an oil rig operated by the company exploded April 20, killing 11 workers and later sinking.

"Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak; BP will be paying the bill," Obama said while touring the area Sunday.

While it's true that the federal Oil Pollution Act, enacted in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, makes BP responsible for cleanup costs, the law caps the company's liability for economic damages -- such as lost wages, shortened fishing seasons or lagging tourism -- at $75 million, a pittance compared to potential losses.


May 2: President Obama talks with U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal aboard Marine One as they fly along the coastline from Venice, La.
Administration officials insist BP will be held responsible anyway, noting that if the company is found negligent or criminally liable, the cap disappears. Claims also can potentially be made under other state or federal laws, officials said.

Yet the liability cap is problematic enough that a trio of Democratic senators introduced legislation Monday raising it to $10 billion, and the administration quickly announced its support. Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida voiced concerns that unless the cap is raised, BP would avoid paying for the mess and leave small businesses, local government and fishermen with the bill.

"They're not going to want to pay any more than what the law says they have to," Nelson said.

That's not quite the seemingly ironclad guarantee heard from the president.

Then there's the administration's rhetoric about anticipating the magnitude of the crisis and bringing all resources to bear on Day One.

"We had (Defense Department) resources there from Day One. This was a situation that was treated as a possible catastrophic failure from, from Day One," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

That sense of urgency was not so apparent when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about the incident April 23, three days after it occurred. At the time he seemed to dismiss its severity and indicated it wouldn't affect Obama's plans to open up new areas of the coast to offshore drilling.

"I don't honestly think it opens up a whole new series of questions, because, you know, in all honesty I doubt this is the first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last," Gibbs said.

A week later, Obama was announcing plans for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to review whether new technologies were needed to safeguard against oil spills from deep-water drilling rigs. The president said no new offshore oil drilling leases would be issued without any such safeguards.

And Napolitano's comments over the weekend about the Pentagon's Day One role seemed a change from last Thursday, when she seemed to indicate the Defense Department was not yet involved in responding to the spill: "If and when they have something to add, we'll certainly make that known," she said.

A Homeland Security spokesman, Sean Smith, said Napolitano's more recent comments referred to the Navy's help with the Coast Guard's search and rescue mission early on
, and that when she was discussing the Defense Department last Thursday she was alluding to any additional help they could bring to bear.

The administration's evolving rhetoric reflects not only the increasing seriousness of the spill itself, but its determination to be seen as responsive from the get-go and to squelch comparisons to the Bush administration's slow-footed response to Hurricane Katrina.

It's only natural that administration officials would adjust their response as the spill worsened and its seriousness became evident. But they invite judgment when claiming they responded at 100 percent starting Day One to an incident whose magnitude was not yet apparent, or when black-and-white assertions about taxpayer protections turn out to be tinged with gray.

.