Nimon

His wife was supposed to be covert.

How does being on the cover of a magazine make her not a covert agent?

It was he that put his wife's pictures on Vanity Fair magazine cover for crying out loud.

I've asked about this before and not gotten an answer. Can you explain how this is relevant to anything?

Oh, and I thought the "we begin bombing in five minues" mic check was funny. Inappropriate, but funny.

I was never a big fan of Reagan, and I still think he's overrated. However, given today's Republicans, I'd be happy to have him back. His massive deficits were for a very specific reason, and other than that and the trappings of state, he really was a fiscal conservative. He was more or less (more in speeches, less on paper) an advocate of states' rights, and I'm a firm believer in his "we have the right to be stupid" stance. I agree with your "last of the old school" opinion.

I used to joke about the actor thing, but these days I'm thinking that's a better qualification than most. The man was a leader, and he was a leader because he could deliver a great speech. I really miss that. It is a pity his administration couldn't have been shifted back four years. At the end of his eight years, his mind wasn't what it was at the beginning. Reality and fantasy started to blur, and it is sad to have that as part of his record.

The biggest thing people give him credit for is intentionally bankrupting the USSR. While his policies were a big factor in that, I've never been convinced that that is what he was trying to do. I think he just saw the titantic struggle of it all--a romanticized view of it, in fact. I strongly opposed his "any means" approach to the struggle. That had him supporting terrorists and usurping Congress. In the end, I am unforgiving of ignored corruption in any administration; I suspect if we knew the truth of things, he was impeachable.

For eight years my father had a James Garner quote tacked up on his board. It went something along the lines of, "When he was president of the Screen Actors Guild, we always told him what to do. Now someone else will tell him what to do." Even if that was true--and I wouldn't be surprised if it was--he was still a great leader. He stood up, took point, and inspired. Never underestimate the power of oration.

So Rumsfeld organizing his people to help support him as he did his job is a bad thing?

My mistake. I thought it a straightforward question that bypassed the crap.

Maybe we could do one of those here where Ish can post his "bush Lied" conspiracy theories among other things.

Here's a question for you that doesn't involved Ish. What do you think was the purpose of creating the Office of Special Plans, staffing it with partisans, having them process raw intelligence data (not all of which was collected by the intelligence community), and preparing reports for the executive and legislative branches without putting them through the intelligence community?

An article that shows a clear, articulate trail that it was not "lies".

An article that continues the "check out my waving hands, not what's behind the curtain" masquerade.

i would enjoy writing a book, particularly either a commentary or a fiction, but i have a hard time drawing out my fiction farther than about 30 to 40 pages.

It's a little late to start, but it is November, National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). You could join with thousands of others in the mad stampede to write 50,000 words. The herd aspect helps provide the momentum to get you to your goal. And for most people, reaching the goal requires writing, not thinking. Many find it a useful exercise.

It's a good rundown of the same-old same old. The leaders and press on the right have done a very good job of focusing such discussions on WMD and the exact wording of things the administration said. The leaders and press on the left, believing correctly that the masses would fall for it the same way they fell for the administration's deception, have gone along with it. The problem is, with everyone worried about gaining and holding power while lessening the other side's, both truth and the best interests of our country fall by the wayside. Well done, everyone.

The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it's full of Libertarians, which is why so many libertarians won't go near it--too many loons. However a charismatic, pragmatic libertarian would stand a good chance right now. They'd be different than the status quo, which is a big plus, and they'd have a platform with something to appeal to both the left and the right.

DJ, you can blame congress for the subsidies, not Bush. He opposed them. (Now if only he hadn't lost his veto stamp that first day in office...)

I'm opposed to subsidies in general and oil subsidies in particular. It hides the cost of the product from the consumer.

I don't own a TV, much less watch West Wing, but I got a good laugh out of libertarian Radley Balko's response (www.theagitator.com):

Alan Alda for President

 

 

I was going to blog my reaction to the live West Wing debate last night, but Russ Roberts beat me to it, and captured my sentiments to the word.

 

It's a sad state of affairs when the most eloquent defense of free markets, private initiative, and limited government uttered by a politician in two decades has come from a fictitious presidential candidate played by an actor with leftist politics.

 

Still, the West Wing staff ought to be credited. Not only did they not creat a caricature of a Republican, they created a better Republican than any currently serving in Washington.

Without even seeing the show, I can say it wouldn't surprise me.

In order for oil companies to record record profits is if they increased the markup they put on top of the wholesale price.

The oil companies make money when oil is $20/barrel. The costs to produce that oil does not go up just because oil is $60/barrel. That $40 is all profit. However, it is important to understand that oil companies no more set the price of oil than farmers set the price of wheat. It's priced on the trading floor. Oil producers can manipulate the market by limiting supply, but that isn't happening right now. Global production is pushing the limits of current infrastructure.

They've been replaced by the days of making a moral distinction between lying and lying under oath.

The more things change, the more they remain things.

Please explain this to me.....

 

-Oil rigs out in the Carribean are wiped out by massive hurricanes.

-This causes MASSIVE amounts of damage dollar wise (billions?)

-prices surge through the roof because of an immediate lack of

  crude/refined oil. Short supply. No stock to sell.

- Oil companies, despite these stifiling penalties, are bringing in record

  profits year after year!

Not all oil rigs were wiped out. 108 rigs were destroyed by Rita and Katrina, but they accounted for less than two percent of Gulf production. Initially, a lot more production than that was lost--about 30% for a while--and some damaged rigs won't be back online until next year, but it's still only part of Gulf production, which is only part of US production, which is only part of global production.

Damage and, eventually, production losses are mitigated by insurance.

Short supply does not mean no stock to sell. It means they're making that much more on the stocks they do sell.

Let's look at Chevron. My understanding is that they were hit harder by hurricanes than the other big oil companies. Their third quarter gross, $54.5 billion, was up 34% over the same quarter last year. Their profits, however, were only up 12% over the same quarter last year. Chevron estimates it would have seen another $600 million in profits if not for the storms. (Storm-related losses in the fourth quarter are expected to be higher.) In other words, gross profits are way up thanks to the price of oil, and net profits are up, but due to the storms, not nearly as much. So, yes, the storms impacted Chevron's bottom line, but not nearly as much as you believe. The storms didn't wipe out everything in the Gulf, and the Gulf is not the be-all end-all of the big oil companies' revenues.

What do you guys think about this?  If the central theme of this investigation was the outing of Valery Plame, how come no indictments about that today??  Wouldnt you think they would be first?  After 2 yrs of investigation even..

Not necessarily, but it seems like SOP in high-end politcal and corporate cases for the indictments to be rather far afield from the orginal investigation.

This why she was on Vanity fair magazine a month or two before this all came out?  She looked really covert there.  She looked really covert donating money to the Dems using her "Covert" business name too.  Joseph Wilson using her name in an op-ed before this all supposely happened must have also been more covert action.

I've heard these arguments a lot, and I've never understood why anyone bothers with them. Covert doesn't mean her existence is a secret. It means what she does is a secret. If the Vanity Fair article had been "Spies Like Us," or she'd at least revealed in it that she worked for the CIA, then you'd have something, but I've yet to hear anyone make that claim.

Yes, but they've upgraded other refineries. Overall, refinery output has increased during the consolidation. Also, the shutting down of refineries does not put upward pressure on the price of crude.

I'm not sure of your point. I say oil prices are high because global demand is exceeding global production, which is nearly max out. Most of your post seems in line with that. The particulars of the production-limiting problems that crop up from month to month don't really matter.

The only one I question you on is the consolidation of refinery ownership. That in and of itself does not affect production, so what do you see them doing that does?

I disagree with your list. Also, just to complicate the matter, there's more to in than just left/right. A source that is left on social issues, for example, may very well be right on business issues. And most of them you listed helped provide the popular support the administration needed to get us into Iraq.

Bush was not a target. He's not testified. He has not lied.

I was with you until here, but you left off "under oath" on that last one. (It will be my biggest shock of the entire Bush administration if he ever finds himself testifying under oath.)

The price of oil isn't set by the oil companies. It is a commodity, priced on the global market. Globally, demand is skyrocketing and production is maxing out. That's a recipe for high prices, and high prices mean high profits. However, it is unlikely the oil companies are cackling with glee over this. They're probably quite concerned. Prolonged high prices could provide the market force necessary for us to kick the oil habit, and they don't want that to happen until they're actually out of oil.

I feel for the little guy, but I like the high price for oil. True, I own natural gas stocks, but that's beside the point. We're not going significantly reduce our dependency on oil without feeling pain, and I'd rather have it happen now when our economy is in relatively good shape. If we have to go through that when our economy tanks--and I expect that to happen in the long term--it'll hurt a lot more.

Look on the bright side: high oil prices mean a more stable Russia, and I'd rather not be nuked.

This is common knowledge now days.

Being common knowledge doesn't make it true. There is no blanket bias in the mainstream media. Each source of news has it's own bias. That's why it is important to follow many sources if you want to have a clue what's going on.

DJ, you can get a good one for about half that. Less if you go with the built-into-the-bottle kind, but those would be very limited on the number of people using it.

Ish, a solar still can be a little tricky in an apartment.

3 weeks of food and water!?!?!?  I live in a 700 sq foot apartment in manhattan that costs me $2700 a month!  There is absolutely no space for that!  3 weeks?!!?! ACK!

You can put three weeks of food in a standard-size paper box. If you have reasonable access to water, which is likely, two gallons and backpacking water purifier and some extra filters will do. I lived in a much smaller apartment in NYC, and allocating that much space would not have been a problem.

Soul, as is said, there are few emergencies a functioning community cannot handle. I feel that when individuals are prepared for emergencies, it makes it much easier for a community to function.

Regarding the dogs, do you leave your toilet seats up? It can mean the difference between life and death for them.

Good posts! But what Im worried about is when we come to a point where we almost completely rely on technology and something happens where the infrastructure fails, how will our country resond in that crisis?

I'm a fan of self-reliance. I believe in keeping 6-12 months of food on hand and knowing how to access drinkable water. We usually have enough fuel on hand to run the generator for most of a day, which is enough time to do a lot of prep work. We have multiple ways of cooking that do not require electricity. We prefer a woodstove as our primary source of heat and live in a region where both wood and game are plentiful. We've had training in primitive skills. We own bicycles. When I worked away from home, we planned on how to reunite in the event of a catastrophe. I backup data offsite and have a firesafe for important documents. We lock the door at night and the car always, even when living in places where that is unusual. I check exits when I'm in an unfamiliar building. Most of these are just common sense to me, and I'm not even a Boy Scout. Probably my biggest failure in this area is that I don't always have a properly prepared bug-out bag.

In the classic SF novel A Matter for Men, the protagonist comments to his father how well prepared the family was for the plagues, as if he knew they were coming. His father tells him that you can expect to bug out twice in your life. That's just playing the odds. I loved that bit, but it's not just bugging out. Something as simple as unemployment can make that year's supply of food come in real handy. If infrastructures collapse, there's little reason for us to leave our home. We'd be safer right where we are.

FEMA used to advise keeping three days of food and water on hand (it'll be interesting to see if they change that now), but I've known a lot of people who didn't even have that. I think three weeks is an absolute minimum. Three weeks of food and water can see you through a lot of problems. Always having a duffle on hand containing some clothes, cash, food, water, maps, first aid supplies, copies of documents, an address book, and a credit card may or may not save your life, but it will certainly make your life a lot easier if you have to leave the house right NOW. (Having pets adds another dimension to this, as you may very well not be able to take them.) If everyone had a bug-out bag and discussed what to do should it ever be needed, I think catastrophes would be less catastrophic. If individuals are reasonably prepared for Bad Things, it makes it easier for communities function during an emergency, and there are few emergencies that a function community cannot handle.

Again the problem isn't technology. It is the arrogance and/or carelessness of those who rely on it. It will fail, guaranteed. The news is filled with people saying, "I never thought it could happen to me." Why not? We see it happen to other people all the time. Civilization is thin veneer that periodically fails. It makes sense to be prepared for what's underneath.