Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 26

Journal by pudge

Kerry Nomination

It's been floated that John Kerry may not officially accept the party nomination until weeks after the Democratic convention, because the longer he waits, the longer he can spend his pre-nomination money. That's how the campaign finance system works.

I have no problem with this at all. Certainly, he has practical problems to overcome if he chooses to do this -- especially how to say "I accept your nomination" at the convention without actually accepting it -- but beyond that, I don't mind.

David Broder, on Meet the Press, noted that this move marks another step in the Democrats process of "destroying institution after institution of political significance by this preoccupation with chasing money." I don't disagree, but the problem is that I dislike those institutions -- our current campaign system, including the primaries and the caucuses and the conventions, and how the campaigns are funded -- and wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed.

He also noted that while we used to say Republicans were driven by money, that now, "it's the Democrats who are allowing money to drive everything." They moved the primaries up to have more time to raise money, and are thinking of moving the nomination forward to have more time to spend it. I don't have a problem with any of that: more power to them. I have a problem with any systems that require such maneuvers in order to maximize the efficiency of the organization. The primary system, the nominating conventions (which our tax dollars pay for), and all the rest are a joke to begin with, and this proposed action doesn't destroy them, it highlights their flaws.

Snake Oil

John Kerry gave his party's response to George Bush's radio address this weekend, and he talked about oil, essentially trying to blame Bush for high oil prices. Of course, there is almost nothing a President can do about oil prices, except try to get increase supply, or decrease demand. Kerry attacked on both fronts.

He gave lip service to alternative fuel sources, something Bush also gives lip service to. Why should we trust Kerry on this? And Kerry criticizes Bush for a supposed quid pro quo to get supply increased (one that there's no evidence ever happened), and for attempts to get more oil out of American land.

And he made no mention of the announcement that the Saudis are planning to increase oil production next month, which is exactly what we need in the short term.

And while I am on that subject: a lot of people seem to think the Saudis and OPEC just willy-nilly increase or decrease supply. If the price of oil gets too high, people stop buying it as much, and the supply goes high anyway, which forces the price down. Similarly, if they let the price get too low, then supply would run out, which would drive the prices back up. OPEC wants to be able to control prices rather than have events like these control prices.

Like any other market, it's a balancing act, and while I don't know why prices are so high right now -- in particular, I don't know why OPEC decreased production in February -- I do know that our oil prices have been very stable since the 70s, and OPEC deserves much of the thanks for that.

Ahmed Chalabi

Hoo-boy, this is gonna be interesting to watch. Chalabi, former pro-west Iraqi golden boy, is being accused of passing classified information to Iran. I have no real comment on this. I've never had much of an opinion about Chalabi, and that's not changed. I've never felt I understood him enough to have an opinion about him. But I feel a series of books, and maybe a TV movie, in the making here.

Sovereignty Revisited Again

Does anyone really think the Iraqi government that takes over in July would ask the U.S. troops to leave? If our troops leave, the government won't even be able to protect itself from its own people, let alone potential attacks from Iranians, Syrians, and terrorists.

Especially considering that the stated goal of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is to put technocrats in place, it just seems extremely unlikely that our troops will be asked to leave. Technocrats are the ultimate pragmatists in government, and to ask our troops to leave would be suicide. It isn't going to happen.

"Jeffords" as a Verb

There's open talk now about the possibility of John McCain jumping ship, joining the John Kerry ticket, "Jim Jeffords"-ing the Republicans. I don't see it at all. McCain is a hawk, he's pro-life, he is for small government and low taxes. The only good thing about him, from a Democrat perspective, is that he is a respectable Republican who speaks out against the President. Is that enough to build a candidacy on, especially when he is actively campaigning for President Bush? The whole idea is ludicrous.

Nancy Pelosi

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said this week:

The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back. ... The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader. ... I believe that the President's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience ...

My question: why should anyone care what a woman thinks?

Hillary Clinton

Speaking of women, Hillary Clinton was on Fox News Sunday this week. Yow!

Bush TV

Don't forget, Bush is giving a big address on TV tonight. 8 p.m. Eastern.

Washington State Republican Convention

I'll be a delegate to the convention this Friday and Saturday. I hope to give a report on it next week.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • She's my Representative. Don't mess with her or she will kick your ass!

    As for the primaries, I say do away with them in their current form. Howard Dean was right in saying that they distort the political process. Either a national primary or a series of rotating regional primaries (one weekly for four weeks, beginning in a different region each time), held in the summer of the election year, should suffice. The election season is too long by a factor of three or four.

    BTW, I too am not being a spectat

    • I am unafraid of Rep. Pelosi.

      Congrats on your candidacy, good luck. I think I am going to nominate myself for the national convention in NYC. I have no hopes of being selected, and even if I am, I doubt I would want to pay for it, but it would be an interesting experience.
  • My question: why should anyone care what a woman thinks?

    Wow, Pudge. You're either brave or stupid. Wondering "aloud," even in jest, that a woman's opinion doesn't matter. I don't think I could ever do that and get away with it....
    • If she can make ludicrous ad hominems, so can I. And I have a much smaller audience.
      • I live in California. I can't easily gage the attitude in other states, but in CA, the utter contempt the left (especially the left in POWER) holds on even moderates is disgusting.

        This is what happens when we elect extremists.
  • When adjusted for inflation have been roughly flat(or cheaper at times) since the 70's IIRC.

    Also, my understanding is that speculators are really raising the price of oil on the commodity market, by up to $10/barrel.

    Nothing anyone can do about that.
    • Also, my understanding is that speculators are really raising the price of oil on the commodity market, by up to $10/barrel.

      Actually, if high gas prices make a huge dent in the worldwide economy, and $10 a barrel is caused by speculation, I'd say that is definitely more than enough reason to find a solution.

      I heard one commentator on TV discuss placing heavy taxes when speculation prices reach too high. So, with high taxes, speculators wouldn't speculate so much, and the price of oil would drop.

  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    Kerry: I don't personally care about a legal fiction but -- I can tell you that Bostonians are livid. North Station down, I-93 down, the Green Line shortened, no Tall Ships, no Olympic gymnastics trials and it'll be costing us money and there won't even be an official nomination!

    McCain: I don't get the media obsession with him. He's obviously a loyal Republican. Why this unending fixation with his alleged plans to switch parties?

    Chalabi: To quote P.J. O'Rourke, "Not being a liberal I don't have opinions on

    • Maybe they should hold the convention in the Big Dig. They could have the acceptance speech on the Zakim bridge. Too bad they already tore down the elevated Artery - they could have let the commuters use that during the event.

      As for McCain, in my opinion he's a better Republican than Bush. (Of course I'm a Kerry supporting San Francisco Democrat, so WTF do I know?) He's been very clear about his priorities concerning fiscal responsibility and a traditionally Republican (i.e. Bush-Sr. internationalist)

    • Ahh Chalabi. He headed up the Iraqi National Congress, a group of exiles, was on the CIA payroll for a bit and fed us a heck of a lot of bad intel. He's wanted in Jordan for Bank fraud(where he was tried in absentia).

      His ties to Iran are fairly recent.

      Basically he's a thug, formerly our thug(like so many before him).
  • my friends in Europe, and other areas like to comment about how they pay something like $5.00 USD for one liter of petrol. So relitivly speaking we got it good in the US of A, even with $2/gallon.

    I think Ross Perot mentioned this back when he was running for high office. Something about him having a plan to increase fuel prices to save the US from itself financially speaking.

  • Does anyone really think the Iraqi government that takes over in July would ask the U.S. troops to leave?

    The interim Iraqi government will be choosen by the US (through the Coalition Provitional Authority). The US will not choose an interim government that would ask US troops to leave. Therefore the interim government will not ask the US troops to leave.

    The real danger is when the Iraqis elect their own government. How does one establish a democratic system, that doesn't allow theocrats and anti

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    I'll be a delegate to the convention this Friday and Saturday.

    Sweet.

    I hope to give a report on it next week.

    Ought to be interesting.

  • An explanation of gas prices. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dexterpexter ( 733748 ) on Monday May 24, 2004 @05:47PM (#9242092) Journal
    I know I am just commenting on one part of the above, but I figured that this is the perfect chance to talk about this, even if it does take things down a different road.

    One thing that alot of people don't realize is that the price per barrel for oil has remained relatively stable over time. Part of the reason that we pay so much more for oil now than we did ten to twenty years ago? The answer is suprising.

    In Canada, over half of the price one pays at the pump for gas is the result of taxes. The United States is not much different. This is, in fact, why gas is such a spread of prices across the united states, depending on the taxes. The oil companies are an easy scapegoat and people like to blame them because, frankly, its easier and also because the politicians who are knee deep in the cause of all of this, fuel that misconception. Now, I am no Bush fan, but people who say that gas prices are so expensive because he and his oil buddies are getting rich aren't seeing the entire story.

    A good break down of gas taxes in 2003 is shown here [gaspricewatch.com] by state. It is also noteable that there is an additional federal tax on gas (in 2003, it was almost 19 cents per gallon.) Alright, so you have state and federal taxes on gas. It stops there, right? No, there are also county and city taxes to take in account. So, every step along the way, because they must cover the cost of taxes to make a profit, every step therefore must raise its price for services, which you see at the pumps.

    Then also consider all of the EPA regulations that have fallen upon oil/gas refineries. The price of fines and the price of implementing ways to fall under the stricted EPA regulations is expensive, and thus the gas prices have increased.

    Most people do not know that almost every step of oil/gas refining has a tax and that it isn't all done in one place. Then there are the import taxes. All and all, the oil business is a very expensive business to be in, even if the returns are much, much greater.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance13.html [lewrockwell.com], has a good breakdown of the cost of these taxes in cents per gallon. D.C. is relatively middle-of-the road with the Dist. of Columbia paying 38.4 cents per gallon of gas. Hawaiians pay in the 50 cent range.

    So, its not suprising to see the high prices of gas when the money-loving companies want to continue making the same amount (if not a little more) profit as before. And could one really blame them? Is that not the point of every business--to increase profits?

    And, just as pudge pointed out, and covered nicely, there is a direct relation to supply and demand at work here.

    The punchline -- We aren't going to see the good old 70-80 cents per gallon that we used to. At least, not unless there are some major changes.

    However, I do see gas going back down once, as pudge pointed out, the system starts to swing the other way to balance itself.

    • One thing that alot of people don't realize is that the price per barrel for oil has remained relatively stable over time. Part of the reason that we pay so much more for oil now than we did ten to twenty years ago? The answer is suprising.

      In Canada, over half of the price one pays at the pump for gas is the result of taxes. The United States is not much different.

      If "under one-third" is not much different than "over half," then you are correct. In the U.S. only about 31% [howstuffworks.com] of our gas price is taxes.

      And

      • Alright. I am willing to admit that calling half of the price of gas paid in taxes might be a slight overestimate. (Although I must also remark that while I enjoy the services of Howstuffworks.com quite often, I do not completely rely on their informaiton since many of the articles are written by people with no more background on the topic than I have.) My estimates were more in the 40% range, but that might also be a function of my living in a state that has some of the cheapest gas prices in the nation

  • And [Kerry] made no mention of the announcement that the Saudis are planning to increase oil production next month, which is exactly what we need in the short term.

    Deceit by omission... that's pretty bad... just think if he'd left out something like "our CIA has already debunked everything I just told you."

    But... maybe this fact of yours doesn't undermine Kerry's point quite as much as you think. In fact, maybe Kerry's right and you're wrong. On this weekend's news of Saudi production increase pledges,

    • He wasn't "right," because he didn't even mention it. He might have been right if he had said, the proposed increase was not enough. But I wouldn't believe that either: part of the reason that the price went up is because the production increase is not happening now, but later (sometime in June).

      • part of the reason that the price went up is because the production increase is not happening now, but later (sometime in June)

        I think you missed the point; crude oil futures rose. I don't know all the details but the price is still hovering above $41 for what's called "the July contract for light crude." News reports say "other OPEC members [were] reluctant over the weekend to publicly support Saudi Arabia's proposal," and so the July futures briefly dipped below $40, then rose again over $41. For compar

        • I understand that futures rose, but I think you missed my point: speculators thought the production was going to increase *now*. When it didn't happen, they got skittish and the price of futures went up, because they are worried that production will not increase, or that if it does, it won't be enough.

          All I'm saying is that your suggestion that Kerry omitted something of importance is incorrect.

          And I disagree. Again, if he thinks this was bad news, then he could have mentioned it as evidence that we a
      • I wouldn't believe that either: part of the reason that the price went up is because the production increase is not happening now, but later (sometime in June).

        It's June. The price hit a record high of $42.38 on Saturday and today it closed at $42.32. "That was the highest price in 21 years of crude oil trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange." [msn.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close