A new pharmacy for The Red Pill

I am very proud to announce that I have been asked to be a co-blogger at Joe Tobacco’s Cadillac Tight, and I have graciously accepted the offer.

Joe has proposed the very interesting concept of forming a right-, left-, and center-oriented blogging team to offer readers a variety of opinions and viewpoints as we approach what could potentially be the most interesting presidential race in our nation’s history. It should prove to be fun for writers and readers, alike. I am certainly looking forward to it.

I will still maintain this blog with content not appropriate for Cadillac Tight, which would include pieces on History and BS I learn at university. But the large majority of my political writing will be done there.

Hope to see you all there!

Techno-Bounties

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has issued a challenge to auto makers. Create a car battery that will “leapfrog” with the current plug-in hybrids. The prize? $300,000,000. His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is critical of the challenge, stating:

After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it,” he said. “I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.

Ironically enough, NASA did that very thing in 2004—”put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win.” You remember NASA. It’s that government agency that John F. Kennedy charged to put a man on the moon. MSNBC reports:

The June 15-16 workshop in Washington will focus on drawing up NASA’s first batch of “Centennial Challenges” — government-funded competitions that would encourage non-governmental teams to develop technologies vital to NASA’s exploration initiative. For example, a better astronaut glove might earn its developers $1 million, while the first team to put a privately funded lander on the moon could win $20 million.
…
The scheme is modeled after this spring’s DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous ground vehicles, and the X Prize for private passenger rockets. Some say the Centennial Challenges are NASA’s best hope for recapturing the spirit of the early space effort.
…
Offering a prize opens up a technological field to nontraditional players, and get more brainpower devoted to a tough-to-crack problem. “Competitors tend to spend more than the actual value of the prize, which is huge leverage,” Sponberg said.

Like NASA and John McCain, the 18th century British Parliament knew the value of offering prizes to solve technological problems when it offered £20,000 (approximately $11,800,000 today) to anyone who could solve the mystery of longitude. After years of effort by many, the problem was eventually solved by a clockmaker named John Harrison, who lived comfortably off of his fortune for the remainder of his life.

By contrast, Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats such as Nancy “Lets nationalize oil” Pelosi would have us believe that a tax-and-spend obese government is the only entity that has the capability to solve the nation’s challenges. This mindset ignores the power of a free market as much as it sells short the power of American innovation.

After all those months in Washington, it looks like it’s Barack Obama who “still doesn’t get it.”

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The bipartisan answer to oil prices

Republicans and Democrats have very different views on how to solve the problem of ever-increasing oil prices. Many Democrats favor an approach that addresses America’s huge demand for oil, while most Republicans favor an approach that increases the supply of oil available for America’s consumption. Partisan politics being what they are, both sides feel their approach is the only answer and that the other side is just plain wrong. But being lost in the political manuevering are the basic economics that show the simple truth—both answers are correct.

Economics has two main factors known that are known as supply and demand. Each can be measured on a graph using price and quantity as variables. When supply and demand are measured together on the graph, an equilibrium point is found that sets the fair market value for the item.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama advocates a plan to reduce America’s demand on oil. Senator Obama’s plan includes the support of “next generation biofuels,” by investing federal resources and expanding biofuel refineries, as well as setting the nation on the “path to oil independence” by reducing America’s oil consumption by at least 35% by forcing new standards on auto makers.

The plan to reduce America’s demand on oil shifts the demand curve to the left, resulting in a potential reduction in price, as shown in the graph below.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has begun advocating a plan to increase America’s supply of oil by lifting the ban on offshore drilling and maintaining oil company tax cuts that could be used for technology and other supply-side factors (AP article, so no quotes or links).

The plan to increase America’s supply of oil shifts the supply curve to the right, which also results in a potential reduction in price.

The graphs above show that both the Democratic and Republican plans to address the problem of rising oil prices can result in potential price reductions. What they do not show, however, are the potential results of using both plans together.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recognizes the need for oil conservation, as well as increased production, inventory, and capacity.

All nations must be better at conservation, and the U.S. is at the top of that list,” said Bodman, who is attending a international meeting of oil producing and consuming nations focusing on high oil prices in Saudi Arabia on Sunday.
…
Although some have blamed speculators for driving up oil prices, Bodman said he did not believe that they are the cause.
…
Since 2003, he said, global demand for oil has increased because of industry in China, India and the Middle East. But from 2005 to 2007, there was very little increase in supply.

Shifting the demand curve left while at the same time shifting the supply curve right results in a greater potential for a reduction in oil prices, as opposed to using just one of the above policies alone.

The answer to the question of oil prices does not include “either, or” but “and.” By using a policy that addresses both the ever-increasing demand for and an ever-increasing supply of oil, America can begin to wean itself from its oil dependency while it maximizes the potential of its natural resources. It’s a winning combination that serves everyone’s agenda—lowering the price of oil.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Flip Flop Goes the Weasel

Barack Obama has found a new activity since locking up the Democratic presidential nomination—running around the mullberry bush.

Senator Obama has a slim lead on John McCain in the polls. The 5% margin is the same lead enjoyed by John Kerry at this time in 2004. And, like Kerry in 2004, Obama is flip-flopping his way around the political landscape that leads to the White House.

The flip-flopping began late last year while debating the subject of Iraq. The Obama campaign website states: 

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

However, in a September 2007 New Hampshire democratic debate Obama flipped and refused to commit to his own benchmark.

Russert’s question first went to Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who would not make the pledge to have all troops removed by 2013. “I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013,” said Obama, “but I don’t want to make promises not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.”

Flop.

He doesn’t want to make any promises—except on his web site, where he promises to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his presidency. My calendar puts that at about June 2010, not 2013.

The Democratic presidential nominee has also performed amazing feats of flexibility with his long-time personal associations. In March of 2008, Fox News broke the story of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s fiery rhetoric. Exactly 4 days later, Obama performed damage control by giving his now “famous” speech on the subject of race in America.

…Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity…. But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor…. And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me…. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

But Barack Obama could and did disown Wright. However, the flip came only after the good reverend switched from insulting America to insulting Obama.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

And how did the Amazing Obama respond?

I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. I don’t — more importantly — I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign….

Flop.

Someone sounds just a little bit bitter.

The weasel’s most recent acrobatics have centered on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last February, Obama blasted Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for her stance on the controversial trade agreement.

“One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have,” he said.

Yet, while Obama was attacking Clinton on NAFTA in public, his senior economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, was whispering a different tune into Canadian ears.

[I]t’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans….

And now the presidential candidate is even admitting the flip.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

Flop.

Barack Obama’s flip-flopping follies prove that Wright was right. Obama will say whatever he needs to in order to get elected. I guess he is still the Barack Obama that Jeremiah Wright has known for the last 20 years.

And if nothing else, it proves that he truely is all about change—at least when it comes to what he believes in. 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance