Three days is long enough. Too long, if you ask me. The gnashing of teeth, the whining, the feigned hurt -- "he DISSED us!", and all this rending of conservative cloth has got to STOP!!!! Yes, if you're a rock-ribbed conservative, you've got every reason to wonder why President Bush chose to tap Harriet Miers to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the Supreme Court. I understand his response to your questions and worry are not satisfying. BUT -- just as "we" don't know much of anything about Miers (except what others who don't know much about her are saying), doesn't she deserve some modicum of respect? I mean to hear some folks rant (George Will comes to mind), this woman is some boob from the back woods of Texas who "ain't got the sense God gave a caterpillar". STOP IT!!!!!
All of this over-the-top carping does only ONE thing: makes normally reasoned conservatives look about as rational as the dKOS/DU/Deaniac left fringe. I've had enough of the carping. When Ms. Miers is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her hearings, THEN we will know more about her. We will (hopefully) get a better read on her thinking and her intellect. If she doesn't "measure up" to the questioning and probing, she won't be approved. Until then, let's face it: we just don't know. Period. So SHUT UP, and quit acting like my 5 year old who just got out-done by his 7 year old brother. "It's not fair!!! he tricked me!!! Wahhhhhhh!!!!"
And one other thing. Ms. Miers (I WILL give her the respect she's due) deserves to be treated as an adult, at the bare minimum. So does President Bush. Even if you disagree with him, he's still the President. He didn't have an affair with an intern in the Oval Office. He didn't turn the White House into some home of covert activity. All he did was nominate someone other than your preferred choice to the Supreme Court. So let's settle down, and remember there are quite a few folks out there who want to see you DEAD. I think that's a much more pressing concern.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Report-alizing Again
When I studied electronic journalism in college -- eons ago, before realizing a Business Management degree would have more practical applicability in the real world -- we learned reporting and editorializing are two distincly different things. Obviously they don't teach that anymore in J-school, since we see examples all the time in the MSM of freely combining the two and attempting to pass off editorializing as honest "reporting". Here's an example from this morning's 8am (Eastern) AP Radio News with John Belmont:
"...The President's speech, according to insiders, is not being given just to pump-up support for the unpopular Iraq War..." [emphasis mine]
Where to begin? First of all this activity in Iraq is NOT the "Iraq War". That ended in 2003 when the Iraqui military was vanquished, and if I'm not mistaken, was not considered "unpopular" by any stretch. What's going on in Iraq now, AP, is the continuation of the GWOT! It seems AP didn't get the message that Iraq is on OUR side. I mean it's not like we're still fighting against Iraq's government or anything.
Typical of the AP to hook the modifier "unpopular" to "Iraq War". (it's VIETNAM!!!!) Just like they always add "right-wing" to anyone who's mainstream conservative (ie: "Right Wing Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh").
Politics as usual. Sickening, too.
"...The President's speech, according to insiders, is not being given just to pump-up support for the unpopular Iraq War..." [emphasis mine]
Where to begin? First of all this activity in Iraq is NOT the "Iraq War". That ended in 2003 when the Iraqui military was vanquished, and if I'm not mistaken, was not considered "unpopular" by any stretch. What's going on in Iraq now, AP, is the continuation of the GWOT! It seems AP didn't get the message that Iraq is on OUR side. I mean it's not like we're still fighting against Iraq's government or anything.
Typical of the AP to hook the modifier "unpopular" to "Iraq War". (it's VIETNAM!!!!) Just like they always add "right-wing" to anyone who's mainstream conservative (ie: "Right Wing Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh").
Politics as usual. Sickening, too.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Moosemuss!
Funny how sometimes something you just can't quite put a finger on, but instinctively feel, becomes instantly clear in the naked light of day. I spent most of my idle time (and granted that was not much) the past two days trying to make sense of the Miers' nomination. My first reactions can be seen here and here. I must say that snarky comment on "whomever has kidnapped President Bush..." was probably the best part of that insta-reax.
I'll admit I was underwhelmed, but the more I thought about it, the more I truly felt there must be some deeper strategy at work here -- and most definitely NOT a sacrificial lamb kind of strategy. But I just couldn't quite put my finger nor my thoughts on it. BAM! All of a sudden, Major Mike has identified it. "It" goes by the acronym of "Moosemuss". An excerpt:
"I don’t buy the theory that in an instant, the President, who incidentally, got the GWOT right, and the John Roberts nomination right. Who has Dick Cheney as his VP and Condi Rice as his SOS…blew a gasket and has gotten this completely wrong. I thought…maybe …MOOSEMUSS...the easily learned acronym that highlights the nine, generally accepted, Principles of War...I suggest that avoiding a battle here, and out maneuvering the Dems, will cause them more problems than Harriet Miers will ever cause conservative Republicans." Read it all.
H/T to Hugh Hewitt for the heads-up on Major Mike's brilliant piece.
I'll admit I was underwhelmed, but the more I thought about it, the more I truly felt there must be some deeper strategy at work here -- and most definitely NOT a sacrificial lamb kind of strategy. But I just couldn't quite put my finger nor my thoughts on it. BAM! All of a sudden, Major Mike has identified it. "It" goes by the acronym of "Moosemuss". An excerpt:
"I don’t buy the theory that in an instant, the President, who incidentally, got the GWOT right, and the John Roberts nomination right. Who has Dick Cheney as his VP and Condi Rice as his SOS…blew a gasket and has gotten this completely wrong. I thought…maybe …MOOSEMUSS...the easily learned acronym that highlights the nine, generally accepted, Principles of War...I suggest that avoiding a battle here, and out maneuvering the Dems, will cause them more problems than Harriet Miers will ever cause conservative Republicans." Read it all.
H/T to Hugh Hewitt for the heads-up on Major Mike's brilliant piece.
A Dell of a Deal
Dell Computer's largest assembly plant opens today in Forsyth County. Congratulations to the company, its new employees and the region on this landmark occasion. All was not sweetness and light, in getting to this event, however.
Just eleven months ago Dell announced it would locate in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina, but it was uncertain just where in the Triad the computer giant would actually locate its assembly plant. Guilford, Davison and Forsyth Counties worked hard to get their recruiting "a-games" going. Each tried their best to come up with the most attractive combination of tax incentives, locations and give-backs to win Dell's eye. It may have been just another day at the office in the industrial recruiting game, but the process angered many folks in the state. Those folks argued the state's overly generous incentives package (worth over $240-million to Dell in a twenty year period, including $225 million in tax credits plus a $14.1 million job development grant and job training assistance from the state) amounted to corporate welfare at best, and bribery at the very least.
Forsyth County was eventually able to out-incentive its Triad brothers and win the contest, if, as some might say, you can call "giving away the store" a "win". The county will be granting Dell an additional $32 million in incentives.
Granted, in the world of economic development, there are plenty of positives to help offset the cost of incentive packages. Just the fact a top shelf company is located in your community is alone worth a huge amount -- it will be seen as a major reason for other companies to locate there, which will bring more jobs and more growth and development to the community.
Be that as it may, the cost to the taxpayers of encouraging Dell to locate in the Triad works out to well over $200,000 per job created. When the vast majority of those new jobs are said to be in the 26-28k per year category, the taxpayers of the state and of Forsyth County will essentially be paying those workers for seven years. Not a bad deal for Dell, at all. Let's hope the major investment by North Carolina and Forsyth County in Dell will be proven to be a smart one.
Just eleven months ago Dell announced it would locate in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina, but it was uncertain just where in the Triad the computer giant would actually locate its assembly plant. Guilford, Davison and Forsyth Counties worked hard to get their recruiting "a-games" going. Each tried their best to come up with the most attractive combination of tax incentives, locations and give-backs to win Dell's eye. It may have been just another day at the office in the industrial recruiting game, but the process angered many folks in the state. Those folks argued the state's overly generous incentives package (worth over $240-million to Dell in a twenty year period, including $225 million in tax credits plus a $14.1 million job development grant and job training assistance from the state) amounted to corporate welfare at best, and bribery at the very least.
Forsyth County was eventually able to out-incentive its Triad brothers and win the contest, if, as some might say, you can call "giving away the store" a "win". The county will be granting Dell an additional $32 million in incentives.
Granted, in the world of economic development, there are plenty of positives to help offset the cost of incentive packages. Just the fact a top shelf company is located in your community is alone worth a huge amount -- it will be seen as a major reason for other companies to locate there, which will bring more jobs and more growth and development to the community.
Be that as it may, the cost to the taxpayers of encouraging Dell to locate in the Triad works out to well over $200,000 per job created. When the vast majority of those new jobs are said to be in the 26-28k per year category, the taxpayers of the state and of Forsyth County will essentially be paying those workers for seven years. Not a bad deal for Dell, at all. Let's hope the major investment by North Carolina and Forsyth County in Dell will be proven to be a smart one.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Affordability, Revisited
Thanks to Jon Ham over at The John Locke Foundation's blog, "The Locker Room" for the link to my posting on "Affordable Housing" in Orange County (NC). His reference to Cole's comment on Durham is right on the mark! The comments on "self-inflicted wounds" are so true. Unfortunately, Chapel Hill's world class medical facilities can't help with THOSE wounds.
Just so you have an idea about the tax situation he references:
According the the Department of Revenue, the tax rate per $100 property value is lower in the unincorporated areas of Durham County (between $0.86 and $0.92, depending on the fire district) than in Orange County ($0.87 to $1.22, depending on fire and school districts), but the biggest variation is in the cities/towns.
If you must live in a municipality in Orange or Durham Counties, be aware Carrboro is the most expensive ($1.65), the portions of Chapel Hill in Orange County ($1.55) are next, followed by Hillsborough ($1.46), Durham City limits in Orange County ($1.43), Durham City limits in Durham County ($1.39), and Chapel Hill Town limits in Durham County ($1.33). Unfortunately there is not very much of the latter portion!
Once again: If the politicians in Orange County are looking to find available "reasonably priced" land for "affordable housing" they'd better start looking in the unincorporated areas of Durham County.
Just so you have an idea about the tax situation he references:
According the the Department of Revenue, the tax rate per $100 property value is lower in the unincorporated areas of Durham County (between $0.86 and $0.92, depending on the fire district) than in Orange County ($0.87 to $1.22, depending on fire and school districts), but the biggest variation is in the cities/towns.
If you must live in a municipality in Orange or Durham Counties, be aware Carrboro is the most expensive ($1.65), the portions of Chapel Hill in Orange County ($1.55) are next, followed by Hillsborough ($1.46), Durham City limits in Orange County ($1.43), Durham City limits in Durham County ($1.39), and Chapel Hill Town limits in Durham County ($1.33). Unfortunately there is not very much of the latter portion!
Once again: If the politicians in Orange County are looking to find available "reasonably priced" land for "affordable housing" they'd better start looking in the unincorporated areas of Durham County.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Hokie Myths
I have to admit up-front I dislike inappropriate comparisons. Especially ones that may sound good on the surface but are seriously flawed when given any serious attention.
If you paid attention to some of the sportscasters and sportswriters in this area of the country recently, you’d think Virginia Tech didn’t play very good football before Frank Beamer set foot on the Blacksburg campus. If you believed that, you're mistaken. Those sportswriters and sportscasters are flat-out wrong.
With all of the talk in this area last week about NC State and North Carolina -- which program is in better shape for the future, and which head coach is better suited to the task -- comparisons to Frank Beamer and Tech were being thrown about. Most of them quite carelessly, I might add.
Usually the comments went like this, “how often does a coach come in and completely change the direction of the program? Frank Beamer came in and really turned-around the Virginia Tech program and they’re a national contender now”. Or, “just like Florida State, Virginia Tech wasn’t anything until Frank Beamer got them turned around.” Hmmm. Florida State had some limited success before Bowden, and he certainly DID change things markedly in Tallahassee, no question. But Tech, pre-Beamer, wasn’t anywhere near the football black hole that FSU was, pre-Bowden. Has anybody ever heard of Jerry Claiborne? How about Bill Dooley? Obviously a few sports "experts" hadn't.
Claiborne coached the Hokies from 1961-1970 (61-39-2, 2 bowl appearances) and Dooley coached Tech from 1978-1986 (64-37-1, 3 bowl appearances). Claiborne jumped from Blacksburg to the University of Maryland to try to turn-around sagging Terrapin fortunes. He did, too – 10 years, 3 ACC Championships, 7 Bowl appearances, 77-37-3 record. No slouch, Claiborne. Bill Dooley had turned-around UNC’s program (69-53-2, 3 ACC Championships and 6 Bowl appearances in 11 years) before he took over at Blacksburg in 1978.
When you look at the number of bowl appearances for Virginia Tech, you should note it was a member of the Southern Conference until 1964 (1st 4 years of Claiborne’s era) and then was an independent through the entire Dooley era, and into early Beamer. It joined the Big East in 1991. So, the possibility of making a bowl appearance was not nearly as easy for Tech then -- there were far fewer bowl games to go around in the early days, and Tech had no conference tie-ins, nor championships from 1965 to 1991 which would have put the Hokies in a possible “automatic” bowl berth.
True, Tech was NOT so hot between Claiborne and Dooley, when Charlie Coffey and Jimmy Sharpe combined for a 33-44-2 record. But Coffey did go 6-4-1 in 1972, while Sharpe went 8-3 in 1976 and 6-5 in 1977, so there were some winning seasons in that rough period.
As for coaching records, Bill Dooley’s .632 winning percentage in 9 years at Blacksburg looks suspiciously like Beamer’s 18 year tally of .636. Claiborne was not too far back of either of them at .608. It’s also interesting to note that it took Beamer 7 years before he would field a consistent winner: his 5 year mark was just 22-32-1; and it took him 9 years before he moved his career record at Tech to better than .500 (51-49-2). That’s giving the man a lot of rope. Something most coaches don’t get nowadays.
The point is none of that can take away from Beamer’s status as a top college coach right now. The Hokies ARE a national contender -- now. However, it’s also pretty lazy to paint the past with such a broad brush. In reality, Tech wasn't a football black hole before Beamer, and therefore does not qualify as a from-nowhere-to-the-top story. Not in the least.
If you paid attention to some of the sportscasters and sportswriters in this area of the country recently, you’d think Virginia Tech didn’t play very good football before Frank Beamer set foot on the Blacksburg campus. If you believed that, you're mistaken. Those sportswriters and sportscasters are flat-out wrong.
With all of the talk in this area last week about NC State and North Carolina -- which program is in better shape for the future, and which head coach is better suited to the task -- comparisons to Frank Beamer and Tech were being thrown about. Most of them quite carelessly, I might add.
Usually the comments went like this, “how often does a coach come in and completely change the direction of the program? Frank Beamer came in and really turned-around the Virginia Tech program and they’re a national contender now”. Or, “just like Florida State, Virginia Tech wasn’t anything until Frank Beamer got them turned around.” Hmmm. Florida State had some limited success before Bowden, and he certainly DID change things markedly in Tallahassee, no question. But Tech, pre-Beamer, wasn’t anywhere near the football black hole that FSU was, pre-Bowden. Has anybody ever heard of Jerry Claiborne? How about Bill Dooley? Obviously a few sports "experts" hadn't.
Claiborne coached the Hokies from 1961-1970 (61-39-2, 2 bowl appearances) and Dooley coached Tech from 1978-1986 (64-37-1, 3 bowl appearances). Claiborne jumped from Blacksburg to the University of Maryland to try to turn-around sagging Terrapin fortunes. He did, too – 10 years, 3 ACC Championships, 7 Bowl appearances, 77-37-3 record. No slouch, Claiborne. Bill Dooley had turned-around UNC’s program (69-53-2, 3 ACC Championships and 6 Bowl appearances in 11 years) before he took over at Blacksburg in 1978.
When you look at the number of bowl appearances for Virginia Tech, you should note it was a member of the Southern Conference until 1964 (1st 4 years of Claiborne’s era) and then was an independent through the entire Dooley era, and into early Beamer. It joined the Big East in 1991. So, the possibility of making a bowl appearance was not nearly as easy for Tech then -- there were far fewer bowl games to go around in the early days, and Tech had no conference tie-ins, nor championships from 1965 to 1991 which would have put the Hokies in a possible “automatic” bowl berth.
True, Tech was NOT so hot between Claiborne and Dooley, when Charlie Coffey and Jimmy Sharpe combined for a 33-44-2 record. But Coffey did go 6-4-1 in 1972, while Sharpe went 8-3 in 1976 and 6-5 in 1977, so there were some winning seasons in that rough period.
As for coaching records, Bill Dooley’s .632 winning percentage in 9 years at Blacksburg looks suspiciously like Beamer’s 18 year tally of .636. Claiborne was not too far back of either of them at .608. It’s also interesting to note that it took Beamer 7 years before he would field a consistent winner: his 5 year mark was just 22-32-1; and it took him 9 years before he moved his career record at Tech to better than .500 (51-49-2). That’s giving the man a lot of rope. Something most coaches don’t get nowadays.
The point is none of that can take away from Beamer’s status as a top college coach right now. The Hokies ARE a national contender -- now. However, it’s also pretty lazy to paint the past with such a broad brush. In reality, Tech wasn't a football black hole before Beamer, and therefore does not qualify as a from-nowhere-to-the-top story. Not in the least.
Bush's Brain
...is missing, no doubt.
UPDATE: (Monday 10/3/05 at 12:03pm) At least in the minds of many on the right. Such as: John Podhoretz, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru
UPDATE: (Monday 10/3/05 at 12:03pm) At least in the minds of many on the right. Such as: John Podhoretz, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru
The Ultimate Stealth Candidate, UGH!
So President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. If he wanted to nominate someone who'd be considered a political crony, he might as well have nominated AGAG. The cat-calls about "cronyism" will continue -- especially since that's been such a hot topic after the FEMA/Brown debacle. You're on your own on this one, George. Don't expect the blogosphere to help you fend off criticism or pump up the base. They think you flat out blew it with this choice. Regardless of whether or not Miers is qualified (ahem!), to leave an outstanding list of proven jurists standing on the sidelines and to appoint a political hack crony with NO experience even dealing with the Supreme Court is a major mystery. Unless the plan is to throw her to the wolves. Then come back with the one you really wanted on second go around after HM gets eaten alive in the Senate. Meanwhile, it's gonna be GWB against BOTH the left AND the unsatisified Conservative mainstream.
Just where is the Scalia/Thomas model at work here? I'm sure I'm not the ONLY baffled blogger on the block.
To whomever kidnapped President Bush and replaced him with the droid we heard announce Miers' nomination: Okay, you've had your fun. Now give us back the GWB we know you've taken from us.
UPDATE: (Monday, 10/3/05 at 12:55pm) Okay, in case you're thinking I am a real moron... it is possible, I'll admit... I was working on the Virginia Tech post (above) when the Prez made his announcement on Miers, so I went with my gut feel at the time on this post. Now with time for a little reflection, I'll admit maybe I was a bit harsh. We DON'T know Miers as the President does. It's likely he knows a LOT more than we do about her and the Constitution. Let's hope so. But he has to know the Conservative wing of the party is not taking this well at all. Regardless of your personal thoughts, I'd bet Republican Congressmen and women are glad this isn't October 2006!
Just where is the Scalia/Thomas model at work here? I'm sure I'm not the ONLY baffled blogger on the block.
To whomever kidnapped President Bush and replaced him with the droid we heard announce Miers' nomination: Okay, you've had your fun. Now give us back the GWB we know you've taken from us.
UPDATE: (Monday, 10/3/05 at 12:55pm) Okay, in case you're thinking I am a real moron... it is possible, I'll admit... I was working on the Virginia Tech post (above) when the Prez made his announcement on Miers, so I went with my gut feel at the time on this post. Now with time for a little reflection, I'll admit maybe I was a bit harsh. We DON'T know Miers as the President does. It's likely he knows a LOT more than we do about her and the Constitution. Let's hope so. But he has to know the Conservative wing of the party is not taking this well at all. Regardless of your personal thoughts, I'd bet Republican Congressmen and women are glad this isn't October 2006!
Friday, September 30, 2005
Affordable Housing? Dream On
Orange County governmental bodies meeting earlier this week continued their on again, off again discussion of needing to do more about something called "affordable housing". Memo to local politicians: ain't no such thing in Orange County. True, over the past several years more than 400 permits for "size-limited units" have been issued in the county, and over 175 have been constructed.
Developmental fees instituted by municipalities and the county, borne by the developer and passed on to the home buyer are one facet to high housing costs. Another is lack of suitable land in convenient locations -- at a "reasonable" price. Yet another problem is high property taxes, the gift to government by the property owner that keeps on giving. But that's another topic for another day!
Some elected local leaders questioned the amount those pre-construction procedures and associated developmental fees could be both streamlined or lessened. No consensus was reached, although you can be sure the discussions will continue.
Well, if the goal is "affordable" housing, maybe Orange County and its municipalities might want to work out a deal with Durham County. Especially given this article which notes: "[s]ince last year, Orange County home values have increased five times more than home values in Wake and Durham counties," and this: "[t]he average resale price for a house in Orange County is now $443,680, up nearly $80,000 from 2004".
Developmental fees instituted by municipalities and the county, borne by the developer and passed on to the home buyer are one facet to high housing costs. Another is lack of suitable land in convenient locations -- at a "reasonable" price. Yet another problem is high property taxes, the gift to government by the property owner that keeps on giving. But that's another topic for another day!
Some elected local leaders questioned the amount those pre-construction procedures and associated developmental fees could be both streamlined or lessened. No consensus was reached, although you can be sure the discussions will continue.
Well, if the goal is "affordable" housing, maybe Orange County and its municipalities might want to work out a deal with Durham County. Especially given this article which notes: "[s]ince last year, Orange County home values have increased five times more than home values in Wake and Durham counties," and this: "[t]he average resale price for a house in Orange County is now $443,680, up nearly $80,000 from 2004".
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Hail to the Chief (Justice)!
John G. Roberts, jr. was confirmed by the Senate earlier today by a 78-22 vote. Congratulations to the new Chief Justice.
Who Will It Be?
You can take a test and find out which potential nominee to the Supreme Court best fits your liking.
Here's mine:
JUDGE EDITH HOLLAN JONES
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Appointed by President Reagan.
Born 1949. A Texan.
Nearly nominated to Souter's seat by
President George H.W. Bush.
New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla
Take the test yourself!
I find it mildly interesting that my test result matches my original published thought on this -- I had commented on Jones previously in this blog. The more I think of it, though, the more I'd like to see something totally out of right field. Say former Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. [Don't laugh, who'd have thought Dick Cheney for VP when he was leading the search committee? Just noting that Thompson guided John Roberts through the confirmation process! Not that that's any clue.] Don't you know the Hysteriacrats and the Main Steam Liberal Media would spontaneously combust over that!
Thanks to New World Man for the link.
Here's mine:
JUDGE EDITH HOLLAN JONES
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Appointed by President Reagan.
Born 1949. A Texan.
Nearly nominated to Souter's seat by
President George H.W. Bush.
New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla
Take the test yourself!
I find it mildly interesting that my test result matches my original published thought on this -- I had commented on Jones previously in this blog. The more I think of it, though, the more I'd like to see something totally out of right field. Say former Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. [Don't laugh, who'd have thought Dick Cheney for VP when he was leading the search committee? Just noting that Thompson guided John Roberts through the confirmation process! Not that that's any clue.] Don't you know the Hysteriacrats and the Main Steam Liberal Media would spontaneously combust over that!
Thanks to New World Man for the link.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Turning the Corner?
59 minutes and 52 seconds had elapsed. Time for one last play. It all came down to the defense -- eleven men needed to keep the other eleven out of the end zone. Period.
Two years ago, in a game that featured a similar finish, the North Carolina Tar Heel defense could not protect the lead on the game's final play. Saturday, with one play to go, Carolina again held the lead and the opponent had the ball with one last chance. Different outcome this time.
Rewind the tape to the Arizona State game in 2003. Carolina held a four point lead at home going into the game's final play. ASU's Andrew Walter was under center. 42,000 Tar Heel fans were standing as one and chanting, "DEE-fense... DEE-fense"! The ball was snapped. Walter dropped back. The crowd roared louder, The rush was coming. Walter dodged the first wave. Time expired. The defense was almost on him again. Briefly, Walter spied an open receiver and let it fly. Time seemed to stand still. Suddenly, the silence told it all. The only sound was a cheer erupting from the impossibly small number of Arizona State faithful in the far northeast corner of the stands. Touchdown!!! Dagger in the hearts of Tar Heel players, coaches and followers. The scoreboard blinked the bad news: Sun Devils 33, Tar Heels 31. It was midway into the season, but the loss set the tone for the stretch run and a final record of 2-10. It was tough being a Tar Heel in 2003.
Fast forward to Saturday, where underdog North Carolina is leading NC State's Wolfpack in Raleigh with but eight ticks left on the clock. Time for one more play. State's Jay Davis is under center on the Carolina 40 yard line. Everyone in the house knows he'll be putting it up for the end zone. At least 52,000 of the 57,100 in attendance are urging the 'Pack to "GO"!!! The ball is snapped. Twenty-two men move at once. Davis rolls to the right to buy time. Carolina has a three man rush coming and everyone else is dropping deep into coverage. Seconds tick off. The ball is in flight. Time again stands still. Defenders and receivers converge. Again, the silence tells it all. The ball falls to the ground. This time it's the Carolina fans whooping it up in the distance. The scoreboard reports the final score: Carolina 31, State 24. Big difference in just two years? Maybe. Certainly it's more proof the UNC defense is on firmer ground. Second heart-stopping win over NC State in the last twelve months.
Last October, the UNC defense preserved a 30-24 victory on two of that game's final three plays. On second and goal from the three, State's T.A. McClendon appeared to have scored, but it was ruled his knee touched the ground first. On the next play, McClendon leaped over the pile, but was met head-on by Kalif Mitchell, who knocked the ball loose. Fumble. Recovered by Carolina. Threat denied. Carolina took a knee on the last play to secure the win.
Has the Carolina defense managed to "turn the corner"? Is it markedly better? So far three games into the season it's ranked 50th over-all in Division I. Last year's defense finished ranked 109th. There's too much football left to say for sure, but another big step can be made Saturday.
Just like last year, Utah is Carolina's next opponent. It seemed as if the Tar Heel defense forgot to make the trip to Salt Lake City then, as the Utes were virtually unstoppable in rolling up 669 yards of offense and 46 points en-route to a 30 point win. Granted, Utah doesn't have Alex Smith at quarterback nor Urban Meyer coaching it anymore, but they're still running Meyer's offense -- and they still have a bunch of talented players from last year's team. If Carolina's defense plays the way it has so far this season, and the offense continues to improve as it has, a Tar Heel win is not outside the realm of possibility. We'll know more around 5:00 Saturday afternoon. Until then, let's not take anything for granted.
Two years ago, in a game that featured a similar finish, the North Carolina Tar Heel defense could not protect the lead on the game's final play. Saturday, with one play to go, Carolina again held the lead and the opponent had the ball with one last chance. Different outcome this time.
Rewind the tape to the Arizona State game in 2003. Carolina held a four point lead at home going into the game's final play. ASU's Andrew Walter was under center. 42,000 Tar Heel fans were standing as one and chanting, "DEE-fense... DEE-fense"! The ball was snapped. Walter dropped back. The crowd roared louder, The rush was coming. Walter dodged the first wave. Time expired. The defense was almost on him again. Briefly, Walter spied an open receiver and let it fly. Time seemed to stand still. Suddenly, the silence told it all. The only sound was a cheer erupting from the impossibly small number of Arizona State faithful in the far northeast corner of the stands. Touchdown!!! Dagger in the hearts of Tar Heel players, coaches and followers. The scoreboard blinked the bad news: Sun Devils 33, Tar Heels 31. It was midway into the season, but the loss set the tone for the stretch run and a final record of 2-10. It was tough being a Tar Heel in 2003.
Fast forward to Saturday, where underdog North Carolina is leading NC State's Wolfpack in Raleigh with but eight ticks left on the clock. Time for one more play. State's Jay Davis is under center on the Carolina 40 yard line. Everyone in the house knows he'll be putting it up for the end zone. At least 52,000 of the 57,100 in attendance are urging the 'Pack to "GO"!!! The ball is snapped. Twenty-two men move at once. Davis rolls to the right to buy time. Carolina has a three man rush coming and everyone else is dropping deep into coverage. Seconds tick off. The ball is in flight. Time again stands still. Defenders and receivers converge. Again, the silence tells it all. The ball falls to the ground. This time it's the Carolina fans whooping it up in the distance. The scoreboard reports the final score: Carolina 31, State 24. Big difference in just two years? Maybe. Certainly it's more proof the UNC defense is on firmer ground. Second heart-stopping win over NC State in the last twelve months.
Last October, the UNC defense preserved a 30-24 victory on two of that game's final three plays. On second and goal from the three, State's T.A. McClendon appeared to have scored, but it was ruled his knee touched the ground first. On the next play, McClendon leaped over the pile, but was met head-on by Kalif Mitchell, who knocked the ball loose. Fumble. Recovered by Carolina. Threat denied. Carolina took a knee on the last play to secure the win.
Has the Carolina defense managed to "turn the corner"? Is it markedly better? So far three games into the season it's ranked 50th over-all in Division I. Last year's defense finished ranked 109th. There's too much football left to say for sure, but another big step can be made Saturday.
Just like last year, Utah is Carolina's next opponent. It seemed as if the Tar Heel defense forgot to make the trip to Salt Lake City then, as the Utes were virtually unstoppable in rolling up 669 yards of offense and 46 points en-route to a 30 point win. Granted, Utah doesn't have Alex Smith at quarterback nor Urban Meyer coaching it anymore, but they're still running Meyer's offense -- and they still have a bunch of talented players from last year's team. If Carolina's defense plays the way it has so far this season, and the offense continues to improve as it has, a Tar Heel win is not outside the realm of possibility. We'll know more around 5:00 Saturday afternoon. Until then, let's not take anything for granted.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Never Too Old To Learn Something
What do Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly have in common? Arrogance, I'll grant you, even pomposity. But if you watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, you know they both are in total agreement that Big Oil is ripping us off. If you missed it, here's Bill's Talking Points.
So he wants to know the name of the individual who sets the price for the gas you pay. Hmmm. How simplistic is that? The claim is that some single individual is responsible for calling every retailer and telling them what to charge for their gas. Now that really required a lot of thought. I think my 5 year old could probably do better than that. But just to be sure, I ought to go ask him and see what he thinks. Hold on...
Back now. Here's how that went:
Me: "Who do you think is responsible for telling gas station owners what they should charge for gas?"
5 year old: "The President?"
Me: "Do you think he sits down every day and calls all of the gas station owners in the United States and tells them what to charge?"
5 year old: "Maybe."
Me: "How long do you think that would take?"
5 year old: "Forever."
Me: "Right."
7 year old brother: "Dad, maybe the owners decide."
Me: "How would that work?"
7 year old: "I guess like a yard sale."
Me: "What do you mean?"
7 year old: "You know, if no one wants to pay five dollars for something, you say 'okay, how about three bucks, or whatever'."
Me: "Good point."
5 year old: "Let's sell some of our old toys so we can buy some new ones."
Me: "I like your thinking."
So the youth of America (at least in my house) doesn't buy the idea of one single person setting all of the oil prices, yet Bill O'Reilly does. Hmmm. What's up here?
O'Reilly says he called an oil "expert" and was told "...for gas to cost $3.00 a gallon, crude prices would have to be $95.00 a barrel". So he has decided that means we're being ripped-off. He also says "don't tell me 'the marketplace' or 'the market' is setting the price..." He, and later Donald Trump (obviously another of the nation's top oil experts), talked about how the oil companies are "making obscene profits". O'Reilly urged viewers to "conserve, conserve, conserve", and "don't drive on Sundays" to "send a message to the oil companies". Riiiiggggghhhhhttttt! I guess that means O'Reilly either walks to church or just plain doesn't go -- I'm guessing the latter. Not to mention that's an extreme over simplification with significant consequences -- it would impact a whole lot more than just oil companies.
He's obviously got a bone to pick with restaurants, retailers and the NFL with his "boycott" idea. Honestly, I didn't know he was so mad at so many people, did you? How does he think we get the goods and services we buy on Sunday? They just appear out of mid-air? Hey, Bill, a lot of your fellow Americans WORK on Sunday, in case you hadn't noticed. It's called "helping to make ends meet". Surely you can't fault someone for trying to make a living, can you?
And as for Trump -- who makes his money in real estate development --for him to jump on big oil is just too rich! Pot calling the kettle black sort of thing, I'd say. Yep, now there's an industry that plays the profit thing fairly, isn't it. Real Estate. Hey, Donald, who sets the price of housing? To paraphrase Bill, it must be one person. Right? Right? Don't tell me it's "the market" or "the marketplace". And why is selling a home you paid $75,000 for 20 years ago at $350,000 today not called an "obscene profit"? In stead, it's called "a smart investment". Why is that? Hmm?
I welcome your thoughts.
So he wants to know the name of the individual who sets the price for the gas you pay. Hmmm. How simplistic is that? The claim is that some single individual is responsible for calling every retailer and telling them what to charge for their gas. Now that really required a lot of thought. I think my 5 year old could probably do better than that. But just to be sure, I ought to go ask him and see what he thinks. Hold on...
Back now. Here's how that went:
Me: "Who do you think is responsible for telling gas station owners what they should charge for gas?"
5 year old: "The President?"
Me: "Do you think he sits down every day and calls all of the gas station owners in the United States and tells them what to charge?"
5 year old: "Maybe."
Me: "How long do you think that would take?"
5 year old: "Forever."
Me: "Right."
7 year old brother: "Dad, maybe the owners decide."
Me: "How would that work?"
7 year old: "I guess like a yard sale."
Me: "What do you mean?"
7 year old: "You know, if no one wants to pay five dollars for something, you say 'okay, how about three bucks, or whatever'."
Me: "Good point."
5 year old: "Let's sell some of our old toys so we can buy some new ones."
Me: "I like your thinking."
So the youth of America (at least in my house) doesn't buy the idea of one single person setting all of the oil prices, yet Bill O'Reilly does. Hmmm. What's up here?
O'Reilly says he called an oil "expert" and was told "...for gas to cost $3.00 a gallon, crude prices would have to be $95.00 a barrel". So he has decided that means we're being ripped-off. He also says "don't tell me 'the marketplace' or 'the market' is setting the price..." He, and later Donald Trump (obviously another of the nation's top oil experts), talked about how the oil companies are "making obscene profits". O'Reilly urged viewers to "conserve, conserve, conserve", and "don't drive on Sundays" to "send a message to the oil companies". Riiiiggggghhhhhttttt! I guess that means O'Reilly either walks to church or just plain doesn't go -- I'm guessing the latter. Not to mention that's an extreme over simplification with significant consequences -- it would impact a whole lot more than just oil companies.
He's obviously got a bone to pick with restaurants, retailers and the NFL with his "boycott" idea. Honestly, I didn't know he was so mad at so many people, did you? How does he think we get the goods and services we buy on Sunday? They just appear out of mid-air? Hey, Bill, a lot of your fellow Americans WORK on Sunday, in case you hadn't noticed. It's called "helping to make ends meet". Surely you can't fault someone for trying to make a living, can you?
And as for Trump -- who makes his money in real estate development --for him to jump on big oil is just too rich! Pot calling the kettle black sort of thing, I'd say. Yep, now there's an industry that plays the profit thing fairly, isn't it. Real Estate. Hey, Donald, who sets the price of housing? To paraphrase Bill, it must be one person. Right? Right? Don't tell me it's "the market" or "the marketplace". And why is selling a home you paid $75,000 for 20 years ago at $350,000 today not called an "obscene profit"? In stead, it's called "a smart investment". Why is that? Hmm?
I welcome your thoughts.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Econ 101 Revisited
I hate to do this again, since it has already been addressed on this site here, here,and here, but I keep hearing politicians, people in the media, and folks in the general public who don't have a clue, so here goes...
People, let's put down the tinfoil hats and get off the soap boxes, here. Ignorance is bliss, they say, but it is also THE driving force behind the politicians' and the media's insistence in "doing something about 'price gouging' at the pump". RELAX. Take a DEEP breath.
Once again, an understanding of how the marketplace works is sorely lacking -- they don't teach economics at "Ed Co." (public school), so it shouldn't be a real shock so many don't "get it". Add to that certain well-meaning (but economically illiterate) politicians who are looking to score points with the consumer for "coming to the rescue" against the "greedy, price-gouging oil companies", and you have a recipe for misinformation and misplaced anger.
Let's try to understand a bit more about this commodity called gasoline. Most of this is understood, but let's review, anyway: First of all, it begins as crude oil, which is located deep below the ground in places like Utah, Colorado, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the East and West Coasts of the US, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and on and on... It must be tapped by drilling, then pumped or shipped to a refinery where it can be separated into useable products, like gasoline or diesel fuel, heating oil (same as diesel fuel for the most part) and various other items. Secondly, it does not belong to you, YET. You don't have a right to gasoline at the price YOU think is "fair". The price of gasoline, like any other product, is set in the marketplace by the interaction of two forces: the availability of a product and the desire to acquire the product by those who want or need it. Supply and demand. Let's look at each factor, shall we?
As for supply... after it's acquired as crude, shipped to the refinery and processed, the gasoline (or other product) has to be shipped or pumped via a pipeline to a distributor who then pumps or delivers it to a wholesaler or retailer, who finally sells it to the consumer. That's a fair number of steps in the process. Any interruption at any point will cause the wholesale or retail supply to drop. When the supply drops, the price must rise.
Why is that, you say? Well, because the demand for the product is still unchanged. In simple terms, we still want the same amount, but the available product has suddenly become relatively scarce.
Why do you think diamonds cost so much? It's not because they're rare. In reality there is plenty of raw material to be mined. But because the Diamond mines and the supply chain up to the wholesaler and retailer are owned by the Diamond Cartel, it controls not only the available supply but the price for the most part. The supply of the "bling" in the marketplace is intentionally kept very limited by the Cartel, thereby making it artificially scarce and therefore, expensive.
Because diamonds are kept in short supply, the price of those that are available will be as high as: a) the seller can set, yet still be able to sell enough to maximize his profits, but b) not so high the consumer will not buy any. That same equation works anytime any particular product is in short supply. Like gasoline, recently.
Most politicians, in essence, are making the mistake of equating the current supply fluctuations in gasoline with an artificially manipulated supply -- such as is the case with diamonds. Understandibly, they're making an incorrect conclusion. It's not really a matter of "price gouging" at all, but rather one of gasoline's relative scarcity. We're talking apples and oranges, here.
Let's look at the effect of changing demand on price. Back in the Summer even before Katrina, the price of gas was going up. Not because of any hanky-panky by BIG OIL, but because it ALWAYS goes up in the Summer. Why? There are two big factors. The first is people want to go more places and do more things, and they want more gasoline so they can do it. Quite simply, the demand increases. Secondly, the refiners have a limited capacity -- there are not any refineries sitting idle that can be brought on line -- yet the EPA reqires a laundry list of different "blends" of fuel for different areas, which are aimed at reducing (somewhat) Summertime pollution. In this case, there is the same quantity coming out of the refineries, but more different products are being made. That means the amount of product going to any given place is constrained.
It's easy to see how the demand for some of the blends may become disproportionately high. For example, let's say the demand in California goes up significantly more than is anticipated by the refiners and retailers. In the winter (when there are far fewer different blends reqired), additional supplies of finished product may be re-routed to the west coast -- which could help satisfy the additional demand. But in the Summer, the distributor cannot send North Dakota gas out to the west coast because the North Dakota blend is different. The additional demand cannot be met easily, so the available supply becomes relatively scarce, and the price goes up.
Don't forget the fact the price of crude oil has almost doubled over the past year. That means regardless of other factors, the price of the finished product would be more now than it was in the past.
There's one more contributing factor this year -- the weather. Add in the fact Katrina caused a significant, although temporary (thankfully), disruption in the distribution of gasoline from the Gulf of Mexico region of the US. It also shut down a significant portion of production, temporarily. So what do you think that should mean? Good for you, if you said "the price would be expected to go up significantly".
Gasoline (in any blend) became relatively scarce three weeks ago (some Governors were even warning that their states "could run out of gas" in the aftermath of Katrina). With a scarce product, the price HAS to go up. If not, 1) the supplier will run out of the product and won't be able to meet any demand, and 2) people will want to "stock up" to weather the coming "shortage".
One good thing about higher prices is that they discourage stockpiling. That means some supply should be available at some price. Rising prices also encourage conservation. Because people know they only have so much money to spend on gasoline, they understand they need to make what they do have go farther. This is the marketplace at work.
Once the pipelines were back up and refineries moved production back on line, the prices DID start to come back down, didn't they? That's because the supply increased relative to the demand for it. People wanted x amount, but there was now more than x quantity available. In order to sell the supply on hand, a retailer or wholesaler had to lower the price to encourage consumers to buy from him (or her).
New development: Hurricane Rita is in the Gulf of Mexico, so guess what? The distinct possibility exists that supplies will be disrupted again, and in anticipation of that, the price has stopped going down -- temporarily. Wholesalers and retailers realize they'll probably have to pay more next week to get the needed supply since it could very well be limited. You should expect the price you pay will be going up because of that.
BOTTOM LINE: There may be SOME "price gouging" going on in limited instances, but the reality is the marketplace works to match demand with the available supply through price. If a particular retailer is truly "gouging" his customers, chances are they'll soon find out the guy down the street is selling gas for much less, and go there. In that case, if the "gouger" wants to sell anywhere near the normal amount of his gas, he'll have to lower the price. Remember, a full supply of $4 a gallon gas you can't sell is not worth having. What to do? Lower the price to the point people WILL buy it. End of "gouging", pure and simple -- and without Gov Co's interference.
STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME? Check out this, and this by Thomas Sowell, or this, and this by Walter E. Williams, or this by Jeff Jacoby, which leads into:
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THOSE HIGH PRICES: Not much, except conserve where you can and shop around for the best price available. In the long run, though, tell your politicians to put pressure on the EPA to limit the number of different summer blends they require. Also, push your legislators to make it less difficult to increase refining capacity. No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years, due to government environmental restrictions and such. In essence, it has been easier to expand an existing refinery than build a new one. But many plants have reached the limit they can expand on their existing property, so expansion is not necessarily an option. Finally, tell them it needs to be easier to extract oil domestically (far too many people have pushed the politicians to keep oil wells away from places where crude oil is obatainable. There has been significant opposition to new drilling based on misplaced environmental concerns, as well. The oil is there, but compromises must be made to get it. That would go a long way toward neutralizing OPEC's grip on us.
So don't buy into this notion of "price gouging". What you're seeing is the marketplace in action. You may not like it, but that's what it is. If you think retailer A is selling gas for too much, shop around. Find a better price. Go there, instead. It's called "making a choice with your feet". And tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to work on the REAL problems, rather than the perceived ones.
People, let's put down the tinfoil hats and get off the soap boxes, here. Ignorance is bliss, they say, but it is also THE driving force behind the politicians' and the media's insistence in "doing something about 'price gouging' at the pump". RELAX. Take a DEEP breath.
Once again, an understanding of how the marketplace works is sorely lacking -- they don't teach economics at "Ed Co." (public school), so it shouldn't be a real shock so many don't "get it". Add to that certain well-meaning (but economically illiterate) politicians who are looking to score points with the consumer for "coming to the rescue" against the "greedy, price-gouging oil companies", and you have a recipe for misinformation and misplaced anger.
Let's try to understand a bit more about this commodity called gasoline. Most of this is understood, but let's review, anyway: First of all, it begins as crude oil, which is located deep below the ground in places like Utah, Colorado, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the East and West Coasts of the US, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and on and on... It must be tapped by drilling, then pumped or shipped to a refinery where it can be separated into useable products, like gasoline or diesel fuel, heating oil (same as diesel fuel for the most part) and various other items. Secondly, it does not belong to you, YET. You don't have a right to gasoline at the price YOU think is "fair". The price of gasoline, like any other product, is set in the marketplace by the interaction of two forces: the availability of a product and the desire to acquire the product by those who want or need it. Supply and demand. Let's look at each factor, shall we?
As for supply... after it's acquired as crude, shipped to the refinery and processed, the gasoline (or other product) has to be shipped or pumped via a pipeline to a distributor who then pumps or delivers it to a wholesaler or retailer, who finally sells it to the consumer. That's a fair number of steps in the process. Any interruption at any point will cause the wholesale or retail supply to drop. When the supply drops, the price must rise.
Why is that, you say? Well, because the demand for the product is still unchanged. In simple terms, we still want the same amount, but the available product has suddenly become relatively scarce.
Why do you think diamonds cost so much? It's not because they're rare. In reality there is plenty of raw material to be mined. But because the Diamond mines and the supply chain up to the wholesaler and retailer are owned by the Diamond Cartel, it controls not only the available supply but the price for the most part. The supply of the "bling" in the marketplace is intentionally kept very limited by the Cartel, thereby making it artificially scarce and therefore, expensive.
Because diamonds are kept in short supply, the price of those that are available will be as high as: a) the seller can set, yet still be able to sell enough to maximize his profits, but b) not so high the consumer will not buy any. That same equation works anytime any particular product is in short supply. Like gasoline, recently.
Most politicians, in essence, are making the mistake of equating the current supply fluctuations in gasoline with an artificially manipulated supply -- such as is the case with diamonds. Understandibly, they're making an incorrect conclusion. It's not really a matter of "price gouging" at all, but rather one of gasoline's relative scarcity. We're talking apples and oranges, here.
Let's look at the effect of changing demand on price. Back in the Summer even before Katrina, the price of gas was going up. Not because of any hanky-panky by BIG OIL, but because it ALWAYS goes up in the Summer. Why? There are two big factors. The first is people want to go more places and do more things, and they want more gasoline so they can do it. Quite simply, the demand increases. Secondly, the refiners have a limited capacity -- there are not any refineries sitting idle that can be brought on line -- yet the EPA reqires a laundry list of different "blends" of fuel for different areas, which are aimed at reducing (somewhat) Summertime pollution. In this case, there is the same quantity coming out of the refineries, but more different products are being made. That means the amount of product going to any given place is constrained.
It's easy to see how the demand for some of the blends may become disproportionately high. For example, let's say the demand in California goes up significantly more than is anticipated by the refiners and retailers. In the winter (when there are far fewer different blends reqired), additional supplies of finished product may be re-routed to the west coast -- which could help satisfy the additional demand. But in the Summer, the distributor cannot send North Dakota gas out to the west coast because the North Dakota blend is different. The additional demand cannot be met easily, so the available supply becomes relatively scarce, and the price goes up.
Don't forget the fact the price of crude oil has almost doubled over the past year. That means regardless of other factors, the price of the finished product would be more now than it was in the past.
There's one more contributing factor this year -- the weather. Add in the fact Katrina caused a significant, although temporary (thankfully), disruption in the distribution of gasoline from the Gulf of Mexico region of the US. It also shut down a significant portion of production, temporarily. So what do you think that should mean? Good for you, if you said "the price would be expected to go up significantly".
Gasoline (in any blend) became relatively scarce three weeks ago (some Governors were even warning that their states "could run out of gas" in the aftermath of Katrina). With a scarce product, the price HAS to go up. If not, 1) the supplier will run out of the product and won't be able to meet any demand, and 2) people will want to "stock up" to weather the coming "shortage".
One good thing about higher prices is that they discourage stockpiling. That means some supply should be available at some price. Rising prices also encourage conservation. Because people know they only have so much money to spend on gasoline, they understand they need to make what they do have go farther. This is the marketplace at work.
Once the pipelines were back up and refineries moved production back on line, the prices DID start to come back down, didn't they? That's because the supply increased relative to the demand for it. People wanted x amount, but there was now more than x quantity available. In order to sell the supply on hand, a retailer or wholesaler had to lower the price to encourage consumers to buy from him (or her).
New development: Hurricane Rita is in the Gulf of Mexico, so guess what? The distinct possibility exists that supplies will be disrupted again, and in anticipation of that, the price has stopped going down -- temporarily. Wholesalers and retailers realize they'll probably have to pay more next week to get the needed supply since it could very well be limited. You should expect the price you pay will be going up because of that.
BOTTOM LINE: There may be SOME "price gouging" going on in limited instances, but the reality is the marketplace works to match demand with the available supply through price. If a particular retailer is truly "gouging" his customers, chances are they'll soon find out the guy down the street is selling gas for much less, and go there. In that case, if the "gouger" wants to sell anywhere near the normal amount of his gas, he'll have to lower the price. Remember, a full supply of $4 a gallon gas you can't sell is not worth having. What to do? Lower the price to the point people WILL buy it. End of "gouging", pure and simple -- and without Gov Co's interference.
STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME? Check out this, and this by Thomas Sowell, or this, and this by Walter E. Williams, or this by Jeff Jacoby, which leads into:
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THOSE HIGH PRICES: Not much, except conserve where you can and shop around for the best price available. In the long run, though, tell your politicians to put pressure on the EPA to limit the number of different summer blends they require. Also, push your legislators to make it less difficult to increase refining capacity. No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years, due to government environmental restrictions and such. In essence, it has been easier to expand an existing refinery than build a new one. But many plants have reached the limit they can expand on their existing property, so expansion is not necessarily an option. Finally, tell them it needs to be easier to extract oil domestically (far too many people have pushed the politicians to keep oil wells away from places where crude oil is obatainable. There has been significant opposition to new drilling based on misplaced environmental concerns, as well. The oil is there, but compromises must be made to get it. That would go a long way toward neutralizing OPEC's grip on us.
So don't buy into this notion of "price gouging". What you're seeing is the marketplace in action. You may not like it, but that's what it is. If you think retailer A is selling gas for too much, shop around. Find a better price. Go there, instead. It's called "making a choice with your feet". And tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to work on the REAL problems, rather than the perceived ones.
9/21/89 Remembered
The first line of Earth, Wind and Fire's 1979 hit "September" is: "Do you remember the 21st of September..." If you lived in the Carolinas in 1989 from Charleston through Columbia, to Charlotte and on up to the Virginia line, Hugo is a name you'll never forget.
The eye wall hit the South Carolina Coast just northeast of Charleston sometime before midnight on the 21st. Fortunately, it struck at LOW tide. The 140 mile an hour winds and 20 foot storm surge caused enough damage. It maintained Hurricane strength up into Virginia. 30 miles up the coast from Charleston, the fishing village of McClellanville was virtually covered by that huge wall of water. 150 miles inland, Charlotteans were digging out from under broken limbs, toppled electric poles and downed trees for weeks.
September 21st is also the anniversary of the deadly 1938 Hurricane which struck the northeast (parts of New York and New England), claiming some 600 lives.
The eye wall hit the South Carolina Coast just northeast of Charleston sometime before midnight on the 21st. Fortunately, it struck at LOW tide. The 140 mile an hour winds and 20 foot storm surge caused enough damage. It maintained Hurricane strength up into Virginia. 30 miles up the coast from Charleston, the fishing village of McClellanville was virtually covered by that huge wall of water. 150 miles inland, Charlotteans were digging out from under broken limbs, toppled electric poles and downed trees for weeks.
September 21st is also the anniversary of the deadly 1938 Hurricane which struck the northeast (parts of New York and New England), claiming some 600 lives.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Military Efficiency on Display in NOLA
General Honore is a welcome breeze of fresh air! He's also an example of why the military is the one thing the Federal Government does right. With Hurricane Rita moving into the Gulf of Mexico, the Military is on site, staging for an evacuation of New Orleans again. Earlier today, the General stepped up and helped bail out Mayor Ray Nagin in a news conference, clarifying the situation and then fielding dumb questions from reporters -- some wanting to challenge what was going on, others trying to replay what did or didn't happen with Hurricane Katrina. But, you know what the General did? HE PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACES! An example:
"Question from male reporter on busing evacuees out: 'But General, that didn't work the first time...'
"Honore: 'Wait a minute. It didn't work the first time. This ain't the first time. Okay? If...we don't control Rita, you understand? So there are a lot of pieces of it that's going to be worked out. You got good public servants working through it. Let's get a little trust here, because you're starting to act like this is your problem. You are carrying the message, okay?'"
Later, another reporter tried a follow-up: "'General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...'
"Honore: 'You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita.'"
WOW! Talk about telling it "like it is"! In fact, most reporters ARE permanently "stuck on stupid". Dan Rather comes to mind, for some reason...
Hat tip to RadioBlogger You can read his full post -- which includes a link to audio -- here.
"Question from male reporter on busing evacuees out: 'But General, that didn't work the first time...'
"Honore: 'Wait a minute. It didn't work the first time. This ain't the first time. Okay? If...we don't control Rita, you understand? So there are a lot of pieces of it that's going to be worked out. You got good public servants working through it. Let's get a little trust here, because you're starting to act like this is your problem. You are carrying the message, okay?'"
Later, another reporter tried a follow-up: "'General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...'
"Honore: 'You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita.'"
WOW! Talk about telling it "like it is"! In fact, most reporters ARE permanently "stuck on stupid". Dan Rather comes to mind, for some reason...
Hat tip to RadioBlogger You can read his full post -- which includes a link to audio -- here.
A Bifurcated Wind
Former US Senator John Edwards sees the Katrina aftermath as an opportunity to end ALL poverty in the "Two Americas" -- or at least for the one in which he definitely does NOT reside. Naturally, this topic falls nicely in line with his current gig as director of the UNC School of Law's Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity. And just what DOES that position entail?
So far the former Senator seems to be spending most of his time AWAY from the UNC campus, traveling around the country and speaking to various groups (the Katrina comments were made Monday in a speech to the Center for American Progress in DC). Not only that, but he's been working with questionable political organizations, and doing fundraising for political campaigns, too.
All in a day's work for this politician in his supposedly "non-partisan" position. Edwards' position is privately funded -- making him an EPA (exempt from the personnel act) employee. You can see why, since IF his position was subject to the act, then this would apply:
"... employees... may not:
- Take an active part in managing a campaign, campaign for political office or otherwise engage in political activity during working hours
- Use the position’s authority or use state funds, equipment, supplies or vehicles to support or oppose a candidate, party or issue of an election
- Promise rewards to a state employee or applicant for state employment to gain support for or a contribution to a candidate or party*
- Threaten the employment of another state employee or applicant for failure to support or contribute to a political candidate or committee*
* Such actions are subject to criminal penalties under the law
Even still, my question is just how does he get to spend so much paid time away from the office? Is campaigning and speaking to political groups part of his "non-partisan" position? Sounds like partisan politics to me.
UPDATE: (Tuesday 9/20/05 at 11:10pm) Clarified Edwards position as privately funded, not technically a "state job".
So far the former Senator seems to be spending most of his time AWAY from the UNC campus, traveling around the country and speaking to various groups (the Katrina comments were made Monday in a speech to the Center for American Progress in DC). Not only that, but he's been working with questionable political organizations, and doing fundraising for political campaigns, too.
All in a day's work for this politician in his supposedly "non-partisan" position. Edwards' position is privately funded -- making him an EPA (exempt from the personnel act) employee. You can see why, since IF his position was subject to the act, then this would apply:
"... employees... may not:
- Take an active part in managing a campaign, campaign for political office or otherwise engage in political activity during working hours
- Use the position’s authority or use state funds, equipment, supplies or vehicles to support or oppose a candidate, party or issue of an election
- Promise rewards to a state employee or applicant for state employment to gain support for or a contribution to a candidate or party*
- Threaten the employment of another state employee or applicant for failure to support or contribute to a political candidate or committee*
* Such actions are subject to criminal penalties under the law
Even still, my question is just how does he get to spend so much paid time away from the office? Is campaigning and speaking to political groups part of his "non-partisan" position? Sounds like partisan politics to me.
UPDATE: (Tuesday 9/20/05 at 11:10pm) Clarified Edwards position as privately funded, not technically a "state job".
Monday, September 19, 2005
About That Light Rail Project...
EagleSpeak notes the pie-in-the-sky Triangle Transit Authority's Light Rail project which is projected to cost $630 million dollars and has been revised and revised and revised to the point it will virtually go NOWHERE anyone WANTS to go -- prime example, RDU Airport station has been eliminated from the project. Say WHAAAAT?
He references a May Carolina Journal report about Light Rail in North Carolina, which also looks at Charlotte's proposed system. I can tell you from living in Rock Hill, that one is a boondoggle, too. I may be proven wrong, but I think years from now it will be known as Mayor Pat McCrory's White Elephant. When all is said and done, you're looking at trying to put a prom dress on a sow.
The EagleSpeak post was noted by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit, among a lengthy list of PORK BARREL PROJECTS the blogosphere is offering up to Congress as items that could be de-funded in order to pay the costs of Katrina rebuilding.
UPDATE (Tuesday 9/20/05 at 11:30am): Thanks to Jon Ham at The Locker Room, the blog of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh for linking to this in his post. Be sure to check out the JLF's main site, and the online version of their outstanding publication, The Carolina Journal, for some illuminating reading.
He references a May Carolina Journal report about Light Rail in North Carolina, which also looks at Charlotte's proposed system. I can tell you from living in Rock Hill, that one is a boondoggle, too. I may be proven wrong, but I think years from now it will be known as Mayor Pat McCrory's White Elephant. When all is said and done, you're looking at trying to put a prom dress on a sow.
The EagleSpeak post was noted by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit, among a lengthy list of PORK BARREL PROJECTS the blogosphere is offering up to Congress as items that could be de-funded in order to pay the costs of Katrina rebuilding.
UPDATE (Tuesday 9/20/05 at 11:30am): Thanks to Jon Ham at The Locker Room, the blog of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh for linking to this in his post. Be sure to check out the JLF's main site, and the online version of their outstanding publication, The Carolina Journal, for some illuminating reading.
3 1/2 Hours of Anguish vs a Sunday at the Park
Okay, so you know I'm a loyal Carolina football fan. In fact, truth be told, it doesn't matter WHICH Carolina is playing: North, South or Panthers, I have a personal connection with all three. Three years in the football program at UNC (one as a player, two as a manager), our daughter is a sophomore at USC, and we got to know quite a few Panthers players from doing radio in the Charlotte market for nearly seven years and going to games. All of that translates into an wierd weekend just past.
Saturday was UNC's home opener against Wisconsin. It was Letterman's Day, so all of us former Tar Heels were invited to meet-and-greet at the annual pregame BBQ, mingle with old friends and go to the game. That much was great. The game was odd, to say the least.
As I noted last week, the Tar Heels' defense is much improved, thankfully. They held Wisconsin to 14 points and only 304 yards, despite the Badgers having the ball for more than 10 minutes longer than Carolina during the game. But poor results on 1st down, too many penalties (12 for 115 yards), and several key dropped passes (including a sure touchdown in the 4th quarter) killed any chance for momentum -- or a comeback. So close, yet so far. Badgers, 14-5. 0-2 start for the 'Heels -- should be 2-0. This ('') close. Bummer. Again.
Meanwhile, we tried to keep up with Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks via scoreboard update at the game. Plenty of folks were saying SC could beat Alabama in Columbia (WRONG -- Bama 37-14). Guess they were reading the wrong tea leaves. Even the 'Ol Ball Coach finds it's hard to win without a reliable running game. I should have guessed what might happen when daughter told me she had opted for the beach instead of the game -- and she's a big football fan. So the "Carolinas" went 0-2 on Saturday for the second week in a row.
Last week, the New Orleans Saints screwed up our Sunday, too, stealing one from the Panthers in Charlotte. And with the winners of 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls coming to town this week, Sunday didn't look to be too promising either. Fortunately, we had outdoor plans away from the radio and tv during the majority of the game. So I listened on the way to, and back from our outing. Surprize!!!! Panthers sounded okay on the way there. It was 7-7 when I turned it off in the first quarter.
So we get back in the car and there are 3 minutes to play. Just in time to hear Brady miss-fire on a pass but interference was called on Ricky Manning of the Panthers -- it's 1st down on the Panthers 39. Uh-oh! What's the score? What's the score??? Incomplete pass. 2nd and 10, 2 1/2 minutes left... Crowd noise is loud. Panthers still must be in this one... No idea of the score, still! Then Brady passes complete for 7, but... FUMBLE!!! Who's got it??? PANTHERS' BALL!!! Mick (Mixon) says "...that's one more nail in the Patriot's coffin...". Hey, Mick, what's the SCORE??? Are we REALLY up? They go to break on the radio and he says "...Panthers, by TEN." Oh, MY! Three DeShaun Foster runs net a first down and the victory formation can run out the clock! Jake Delhomme takes a knee twice and... heh! Cats 27, Pats 17! Almost makes up for Saturday.
Maybe I should plan some activity for this Saturday, say between 12:15 and 3... That way we can catch the beginning and the last few minutes of the 'Heels at NC State. Don't laugh...it worked with the Panthers!
Saturday was UNC's home opener against Wisconsin. It was Letterman's Day, so all of us former Tar Heels were invited to meet-and-greet at the annual pregame BBQ, mingle with old friends and go to the game. That much was great. The game was odd, to say the least.
As I noted last week, the Tar Heels' defense is much improved, thankfully. They held Wisconsin to 14 points and only 304 yards, despite the Badgers having the ball for more than 10 minutes longer than Carolina during the game. But poor results on 1st down, too many penalties (12 for 115 yards), and several key dropped passes (including a sure touchdown in the 4th quarter) killed any chance for momentum -- or a comeback. So close, yet so far. Badgers, 14-5. 0-2 start for the 'Heels -- should be 2-0. This ('') close. Bummer. Again.
Meanwhile, we tried to keep up with Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks via scoreboard update at the game. Plenty of folks were saying SC could beat Alabama in Columbia (WRONG -- Bama 37-14). Guess they were reading the wrong tea leaves. Even the 'Ol Ball Coach finds it's hard to win without a reliable running game. I should have guessed what might happen when daughter told me she had opted for the beach instead of the game -- and she's a big football fan. So the "Carolinas" went 0-2 on Saturday for the second week in a row.
Last week, the New Orleans Saints screwed up our Sunday, too, stealing one from the Panthers in Charlotte. And with the winners of 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls coming to town this week, Sunday didn't look to be too promising either. Fortunately, we had outdoor plans away from the radio and tv during the majority of the game. So I listened on the way to, and back from our outing. Surprize!!!! Panthers sounded okay on the way there. It was 7-7 when I turned it off in the first quarter.
So we get back in the car and there are 3 minutes to play. Just in time to hear Brady miss-fire on a pass but interference was called on Ricky Manning of the Panthers -- it's 1st down on the Panthers 39. Uh-oh! What's the score? What's the score??? Incomplete pass. 2nd and 10, 2 1/2 minutes left... Crowd noise is loud. Panthers still must be in this one... No idea of the score, still! Then Brady passes complete for 7, but... FUMBLE!!! Who's got it??? PANTHERS' BALL!!! Mick (Mixon) says "...that's one more nail in the Patriot's coffin...". Hey, Mick, what's the SCORE??? Are we REALLY up? They go to break on the radio and he says "...Panthers, by TEN." Oh, MY! Three DeShaun Foster runs net a first down and the victory formation can run out the clock! Jake Delhomme takes a knee twice and... heh! Cats 27, Pats 17! Almost makes up for Saturday.
Maybe I should plan some activity for this Saturday, say between 12:15 and 3... That way we can catch the beginning and the last few minutes of the 'Heels at NC State. Don't laugh...it worked with the Panthers!
Friday, September 16, 2005
Only a Matter of Time
You knew it would surely happen. When the feds started handing out money to people displaced by Katrina, it was only a matter of time before someone got caught cheating the system. Tiffany Signal of Raleigh claimed to be homeless because she "lost her home" in Katrina. She conveniently didn't have ID because it was "lost in the storm", too. Her real neighbors in Raleigh told police they "knew she was going to lie to the Red Cross". Signal is now a guest of Wake County -- under $3,000 bond.
How many more "victims" out there will be found out to be scammers? Probably more than we even imagine.
How many more "victims" out there will be found out to be scammers? Probably more than we even imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)