The Terpitude of Moral Certitude

In Obama's first 100 days the country has sorted itself neatly into two groups. One group thinks anything he does is wrong and they don't need to know what he did to be sure of that. The other group thinks anything he does is right, and they don't need to know what he did, either.

The latter group is a little more open-minded, in that they concede maybe he's made a minor mistake here and there but either a) it wasn't very important or b) Bush, Bush and Reagan did it first and worst. Like deficit spending, which suddenly became a bad thing to do on January 21 even though Cheney said deficits don't matter. (My bank disagrees with him, unfortunately.)

I was at an outdoor supply store the other day and the owner was really mad about how Obama has screwed everything up for gun owners. There haven't been any changes in gun law; everything is exactly the same as it was under W. Not to mention this guy's business has picked up about 40% as people race to buy new hog legs before Obama gets around to taking them all away. But for this guy Obama is wrong whether he's done something you didn't like, or whether he has not done something you wouldn't like if he did do it.

You have to feel good that everybody is steadfastly committed to their principles, unswayed by any actual events. Who says America has lost its moral compass?

A lot of people thought it was awful that Obama shook hands with Hugo Chavez. Nobody has mentioned that Obama insulted the guy. He said "Como estas?" which means "How are you?" -- but "estas" is the familiar form of the verb. He did NOT say "Como esta?" which is what you say to anybody important. You don't even address your waiter in the familiar form; it is mad phat rude to talk that way to the head of a sovereign nation. It's not quite as bad as if Chavez had greeted Obama with "Hey, boy!" but it's rude. Somewhere between not saying "Sir" to an officer, and meeting a woman and calling her "Honey" or "Cutie Pie."

Maybe this hasn't been brought up because of the inherent paradox. I mean, if you think shaking hands was bad then insulting him would be good, right? But it's impossible for him to do anything good. If shaking hands was OK, then insulting would be bad, and that's impossible. Either way, it's easier if it just never happened at all, and everybody seems to be OK with that.

By the way, "Obama" turns out to be a word commonly used in Southern redneck dialect. I realized this the other day out at LSU when I heard somebody say "Mah bruthern law din come so I drank two sikspack obama self." The six packs were in celebration of this guy getting his Master's degree in English. Or maybe it was his law degree. Either way, you'd think his brother in law would have the decency to show up.

Accrued Knowledge of Economics

McCain is getting beat up for saying he doesn't understand economics. Another case of punishment for telling the truth?

Apparently Obama wants to demonstrate his ignorance. He plans to windfall-tax the oil companies and give the public $1,000 bucks per head to help buy gasoline. which will continue to cost more as petroleum demand overwhelms supply. This tax will 2) reduce dividends to shareholders so he can give some of their money back and 3) take money away from drilling holes to get more oil. So he wants to take money away from increasing supply and use it to increase demand. This is as dumb as McCain's support of the "gas tax holiday." Approximately.

What, you were thinking if we raise oil company taxes it will 1) reduce excessive CEO salaries? Has the Tooth Fairy been to your place lately?

Both McCain and Obama want to curb salaries of CEOs who get rich while screwing up. I wonder how? These are publicly owned corporations, structured under the laws of the United States and whatever state they are chartered in. Their directors are elected by shareholders under a legally monitored process and are legally charged with certain duties, including setting the pay package for the CEO.
If a CEO screws up, do we take back his pay? Will the directors of the company be punished? If so does that mean the voters should be punished if a politician screws up? All of them, or just the ones who voted for him or her? How about the ones who didn't vote? Maybe they should be rewarded; say by splitting the politician's left over campaign funds.
Who gets to define "screwing up?" After all, thirty per cent of the country thinks W is a successful president.

Both candidates are demonizing "speculators," also known as "investors." Either term means a person who buys something hoping to sell it for more than they paid. This happens for GM stock, crude oil, corn, pork bellies and U.S. Treasury bonds. People who do this include you, me, our retirement fund managers, and every seller on eBay. If somebody wants to bid $15 for GM stock thinking it will go up to $20, exactly how are we going to make that against the rules?

"Speculators" are bad, it seems, because they just buy and sell. They buy and sell crude oil, for example, without refining it. Does every GM stock holder make cars? Are we going to change the rules so that only refiners can buy crude oil and only farmers can buy corn?

Beats me. Just drive safe. And far -- remember I'm retired from the petrochemical industry.

Blogging, Bashing, and Talking Points

I've gotten a gratifying number of emails from people telling me how much they look forward to reading my posts. One person has subscribed. Draw your own conclusions.

I'm working off backlog right now; this daily posting business won't continue.

I get a a constant stream of funny and/or fictitious emails bashing the Democrats and Obama, and almost none bashing the Republicans and McCain. I can only conclude that liberals are such sourpusses that they can't see the humor in things, and so unimaginative that they can't make up any interesting lies. Do you want people like that running the country?

Which reminds me; below is a set of talking points for a presidential candidate. Guess which one.

TALKING POINTS

• I am a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
• I was born to very poor parents and was raised by only one of them. My achievements today are my own, and I believe that the experiences of my childhood and youth give me insight to the needs and beliefs of the people of our nation.
• Our nation has serious problems. We are as divided against each other as I have ever seen us.
• Our military is consumed in a war against a foe that wears no uniform, recruits from diverse regions, and is perfectly willing to attack non-military targets wherever they can. This foe believes that our whole way of life is hostile to theirs, and if they could they would drive us out of existence.
• I believe that the current administration has done a poor job of executing this war.
• I did not agree with our country’s decision to invade another country. I believe that the underlying motive was our president’s “quest for glory” and that the war was initiated for false reasons. My position made me very unpopular, although many have since come over to my point of view.
• A significant portion of our population consists of under skilled and illiterate people who came here in violation of the laws of one or more countries. Unlike many, I believe that these people should be provided an opportunity to obtain citizenship.
• Many people, especially in the South, find my candidacy troubling because of racial issues.
• I acknowledge that my experience is limited. Much of it is in state government; my time as a national legislator is less than one full Senate term. It is true that I never created legislation of any significance.
• It is also true that I have never served in our nation’s military, nor have I held any executive position other than a not-for profit organization formed to benefit my state and my community. None the less I am proud of that service.
• Many of you are concerned that my policies will severely damage the economic health of our nation.
• I have corresponded with, worked with, and befriended many people who are very angry at our nation and vehemently criticize our government. I do not necessarily agree with their statements or their proposals, but I do acknowledge that their grievances have some merit.
• Despite the controversy and limitations, I ask you to vote for me in the belief that my personal abilities can bring our nation to a new level of achievement and unity. I ask that you vote for me on faith, in the hope I can do this.
• In closing......
  
  

My name is Abraham Lincoln and I am asking you to vote for me as your President in this Year of Our Lord 1860.