Couldn’t Help But Comment (080708, Morning)
The latest metro area unemployment report from Uncle Sam says that as of June, the unemployment rate in Metro Chicago, home of “The One†I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH†(Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi†Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) , was 7.1%.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rates in the home state of the presidential candidate I refer to as JS3M3 (John Sidney the Mad Maverick McCain III) were 4.3% in Phoenix, 4.6% in Prescott, 4.6% in Flagstaff, and 4.8% in Tucson.
If McCain doesn’t know enough about economics, the chances that he will be advised by home-staters who know something about creating jobs would appear to be pretty good.
The chances that Obama, who is breathtakingly ignorant in economic matters (not even understanding the difference between income and net worth), will find similar real-world expertise among Land of Lincoln residents would appear to be much lower.
______________________________________________
If you think my last point about Obama was too harsh, check out the core of his “energy policy”:
- Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
- Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
- Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.
The third point is literally flat-out crazy. By 2020, the estimated US population will be at least 336 million, at least 10% higher than it will be at the end of this year (I say “at least” because the linked table seems to underestimate what the US population will be in 2010).
Obama’s goal means a ridiculous reduction in per-capita consumption of about 23% (1 minus [.85 divided by 1.10]).
But the best response to all of this is “Why?” There’s not a darn thing wrong with consumption going UP, if the energy that’s available in abundance would just be produced. What would be objectively immoral — and I mean that — would be reducing everyone’s standard of living, and as a result increasing a large number of health and other risks, for no defensible reason. And there is no defensible reason.
_____________________________________________
Following up on the AIDS/abstinence/Bush gets no credit for PEPFAR post yesterday, there’s this LA Times op-ed (HT e-mailer Gary Hall), where Helen Epstein makes a few stunning and depressing observations:
….. (in the 1990s) when researchers presented their findings on these examples of behavior change (that reduced HIV and AIDS) at conferences and in academic journals, all the big agencies working on the epidemic at the time, including the UNAIDS program, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the European Union, already determined to pursue a medical approach, ignored them. Reports were shelved or never made public, and in one particularly egregious case, the results of a key study on partner reduction in Uganda appear to have been distorted to make it seem as though partner reduction had not occurred. Meanwhile, researchers who understood the primacy of partner reduction early on saw their careers falter.
It has become increasingly clear that those researchers were right after all …..
Ideology, and a grim, tone-deaf determination not to suggest that one’s behavior might improve their situation, are trumping what works in a matter of life and death. The behavior changes Ms. Epstein references are primarily abstinence and monogamy. Jettisoning them as strategies, which so many still want to do, would be truly sick.
_______________________________________________
Mort Kondracke, Democrat, punctures a myth that will become clearer if improvements in Iraq continue:
The “central front” in the war on terrorism — along with platoons of terrorists, intelligence agencies report — has moved back from Iraq to Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan.
But Obama — and his fellow Democrats, especially — may not appreciate how difficult a task it will be to “rout the terrorists … and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets.”
If the going gets rough in Afghanistan, will a party that wanted to pull out of the Iraq “quagmire” at the first sign of trouble really back President Obama as he wages war, or will Democrats fracture as they did over the Vietnam War 40 years ago?
A Gallup Poll last week showed signs of potential trouble. While Americans generally believe — by a margin of 68 percent to 28 percent — that it was correct for the U.S. to send troops to Afghanistan, a full 41 percent of Democrats believe it was a mistake.
But, but, but I thought that Michael Moore and the far left said that eeeeeverybody supported going into Afghanistan? Christopher Hitchens exposed that falsehood in June 2004.
Those of us with memories recall the obviously antiwar newspeople warning of the “brutal Afghan winter” and the like. We also remember a growing, organized protest movement. Ah yes, that remembrance is accurate. Fortunately, that was won quickly. Unfortunately, the occupation hasn’t been consolidated, largely because other NATO participants haven’t done what they promised (first item at link).
Kondracke fears that the cut-and-run crowd would move a malleable President Obama, fearful of being seen as another LBJ, to abandon Afghanistan. That’s a legitimate fear.
El Centro unemployment is now at 22.6%! Boy that Sanctuary city policy they adopted is really bearing fruit! http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/06/local/me-sanctuary6
I couldn’t find anything readily available on Yuma AZ being a sanctuary city. But while looking I did come across this gem: http://www.cis.org/trends_and_enforcement
Our best estimate is that the illegal immigrant population has declined by 11 percent through May 2008 after hitting a peak in August 2007.
The implied decline in the illegal population is 1.3 million since last summer, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million today.
The estimated decline of the illegal population is at least seven times larger than the number of illegal aliens removed by the government in the last 10 months, so most of the decline is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country on their own.
One indication that stepped-up enforcement is responsible for the decline is that only the illegal immigrant population seems to be affected; the legal immigrant population continues to grow.
Another indication enforcement is causing the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate.
The importance of enforcement is also suggested by the fact that the current decline is already significantly larger than the decline during the last recession, and officially the country has not yet entered a recession.
While the decline began before unemployment rose, the evidence indicates that unemployment has increased among illegal immigrants, so the economic slow-down is likely to be at least partly responsible for the decline in the number of illegal immigrants.
There is good evidence that the illegal population grew last summer while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population began to fall almost immediately.
If the decline were sustained, it would reduce the illegal population by one-half in the next five years.
I would call that really good news and yet not a word from the MSM…
Comment by dscott — August 7, 2008 @ 10:18 am
As to Obama’s nutty goal of reducing electric consumption in the face population growth, I wrote about this general topic last year and predicted what just recently occured: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/magical_thinking_on_energy_pol.html
Let’s not kid ourselves, any significant movement from the internal combustion engine to the electric car will force an additional increase in electric consumption and thus drive up those prices as well. Are you prepared to pay $400/month electric bills??? Without a significant expanision of coal and nuclear power to supply the baseload, the cost of living is going to skyrocket harming the poor most of all. So much for Dems watching out for the little guy, they’re just unfortunately collateral damage along the way to a panacea of an oil free economy.
And here I talked about illegal immigration: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/the_immigration_bill_sells_out.html
Comment by dscott — August 7, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Apparently, the Dems don’t quite understand what GWOT stands for: GLOBAL War on Terror. Now that we kicked butt in Iraq, it’s time to shift the troops to Afghanistan. What the Dems don’t want to admit is W’s “strategery.” Iraq was a low lying swamp that we attracked much of radical sucidial jahidists to become mired in one spot, we pumped the swamp dry which in turn drained most of the easily gotten terrorists out of the Worldwide Jahid Movement. The jahadists only too late realized the strategy after we killed off most of their followers/cannon fodder/dupes.
Now Afghanistan is our next swamp which we will pump dry just as in Iraq. All the remaining seekers of Jihad glory will flock to Afghanistan to fight the Americans. The fires of Jihad will burn itself out in a last ditch effort to regain their legitimacy to the Muslim world. In the end, OBL will be condemned as an person who engaged in Jihad Adventurism causing harm to Islam’s standing in the world.
This will leave the question of Iran yet to be answered. IMO, the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf area are getting really nervous about Iran’s nukes and threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. The solution lies with the Arabs States of the area, they have the power in their hands to bring Iran to it’s knees. Half of all Iranian gasoline consumption must be imported, they have the power to cut off that supply and thus finish off Iran economically within a month. The Israeli’s or the US can deliver the final blow with destroying Iran’s one and only gasoline refinery thus collapsing the Iranian economy and would be the final straw to forment Regime Change.
Comment by dscott — August 7, 2008 @ 10:49 am
#2 and #3, just went there to your AT piece.
Is it generally true that MPG is lower with ethanol across the board!??!
If that’s the case, we have officially gone out of our bleeping minds putting so much into this technology. Unless I’m missing something, the private sector would never have done it, as it’s totally illogical.
Also, if we had built refineries in the past 30 years, Israel could take that out (or maybe just threaten to) and Iran might be neutered.
Comment by TBlumer — August 7, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Yes it is true, between 1 to 3% lower fuel mileage. There is a net decrease in national gasoline usage with E10 (10% ethanol) but big whoop, whoop when you’re paying top dollar as though you were getting straight gasoline. Basically the math is 10% ethanol minus 3% lower mileage gives you a net 7% decrease on the country’s consumption of gasoline. The consumer is yet once again screwed by government policy. Which means you can pump up your tires all you want, with E10 in your tank you’re still getting shorted on the mileage. Even worse with E85 where gasoline is essentially the additive, which is why Bill O’Reilly is greatly mistaken in advocating flex fuel vehicles.
Comment by dscott — August 7, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Hussein O’s plan could work. Abort (murder) enough babies after they are born and you can control the population and reduce energy demands in the future. The first action is the only way you can accomplish the second.
Comment by Scrapiron — August 7, 2008 @ 1:19 pm