Even if we disagree with an idea – even find it repellent – we must try to understand it on its own terms. In other words understand it as the person who holds that idea understands it. Otherwise we are engaging in not much more than a kind of solipsism. Reality is not much more than a projection of our own minds.

There is a lot of solipsism going on right now.

Victory Davis Hanson offers his usual perceptive and insightful brilliance in his recent article “The American Soviet”.

We are living in another Soviet, a 21st-century sort in which we nod to official pieties and mouth politically correct banalities while in our private lives, for our safety, well-being — and sanity — we conduct ourselves according to altogether different premises.

…

In the American Soviet, only two questions remain. Do these double lives of ours make a sort of sense: Is it that the official utopian rhetoric about love among the masses offers psychological compensation for our private self-interested skepticism about the nature of man? Or is the daily lie a modern Western rather than an enduring human phenomenon — our 21st-century leisure and affluence infecting us with intellectual and moral boredom, in which we long ago outsourced our collective morality to our bureaucratic overseers as we busied ourselves with far more enjoyable private indulgences?

Much is being made lately of high gas prices. And we need to keep in mind that while the Obama administration is not (solely) responsible for this it has done nothing to improve the situation. And this administration and its defenders are engaging in rank demagoguery.

*(For the record the price of gas began to drop from a high of about $4.00 in mid-2008 during the Bush administration and continued to drop after Barack Obama was elected president. It began to climb again pretty much right at the beginning of 2009. It remained steady in the $2.40-2.80 range for a while. And then began to spike in early 2011. Take a look.)

Check out “Are Sky-High Gas Prices Good?” again by Victor Davis Hanson.

And “The Media Don’t Get Economics” by Conrad Black:

The Treasury and Federal Reserve are playing with dynamite, running unheard-of deficits like this. All decent people hope it works, but anyone who has proceeded determinedly and with sure step from Grade 2 to Grade 3 arithmetic can see the risk. Even the existing measurements, which assume that these trillions of dollars of new debt will somehow be retired, confirm a 20 percent rise in the money supply — but the media, which are rarely slow to unload on public personalities in tight corners, have given this wild monetary rise a relatively free pass, to the enhanced peril of almost everyone in the world.

And “Why Isn’t Obama Celebrating High Oil Prices?” by David Harsanyi:

The administration, of course, isn’t at fault when oil prices spike; it just seems to make matters worse. Or better, if you happen to be an environmentalist. So why isn’t it celebrating? Though the left may be wary of the political consequences, it has been pining for high fuel costs for decades. So here they are. Let’s see how the economy responds.

And when some would demonize petroleum companies Larry Kudlow brings the noise in “The Left Hates Oil Companies”:

I read somewhere that either Exxon or the whole oil industry pays more in taxes than the bottom 50 percent of the whole income-tax system. So while president Obama is out there ragging on oil companies to remove so-called tax subsidies, it’s odd that he doesn’t mention how much in taxes the energy firms actually pay to Uncle Sam.

And so on. Dear readers will recall my views on energy and the environment. I support wholeheartedly(?) efforts to find alternative renewable sources of energy. But (a) we need to be honest and realistic about some of these alternatives currently being promoted and (b) a ruined economy – which is where we are heading – is unlikely to develop any of these.

Oh and speaking of solipsism and understanding the motivation for something repellent I decided not to go there in this post. Too dangerous.

Aw shucks let’s go there. But others will do the talking for me.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich.

- Monty Python’s Flying Circus

The Chevy Volt. Electric car. Mostly. Costs $41,000. Wow that’s expensive. No average American can afford to buy that. But wait! The government provides a whopping $7,500 subsidy to offset that cost. So now it only costs $33,500.

The general rule of thumb is you can afford a car that is up to 1/3 your income. So the only people who can reasonably afford a Chevy Volt – with the subsidy – are those who make more than $101,500 per year.

And where does that $7,500 subsidy come from? Taxpayers like me. Who cannot afford a Chevy Volt with or without the subsidy.

Jonah Goldberg outlines brilliantly the absurdities in his recent article “Low Volt-age”:

“Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market,” Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, says, “the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations.”

So upscale urban liberals – an important base of support for President Obama – can not only purchase the Volt to show off how environmentally conscious they are. (And who would care? Not me.) They can do so at the expense of taxpayers who cannot afford one.

I would love to buy a hybrid. Not just for the killer gas mileage. Certainly not for any real savings in money – it takes years to make up the difference in cost over a conventional vehicle. But just the principle of it. Use less petroleum which is a finite and diminishing resource? Yes please.

But the dirty little secret of going green is that it’s expensive. The average American cannot afford many of the changes that going green can involve. I remember an article in the Baton Rouge Advocate about 2-3 years ago about a couple who redesigned their house so that they would not have to use air conditioning in the summer. You know. Better insulation. Adding new windows to get cross breezes going. That sort of thing. You know what it cost them?

$150,000.

That’s more than the value of my home.

I think what they did is great. I would like to do that for my house. But I can’t afford it.

I was not planning to post about this. But had an interesting conversation last Friday during English Conversation that set me thinking.

The host is a contractor. Great guy. He apparently ran into someone who knows me. Stan Zamek and his family – visited them in Hong Kong – are in the States for a few weeks and stopped in Baton Rouge to visit friends.

Why was my host friend over there? To install some solar panels.

How much? $70,000. Wow that’s a lot of money. Yeah but they get a tax credit? rebate? that covers eighty percent of the cost. So they only spend $14,000. No more electric bills. The panels generate everything the house needs.

That’s the same day Jonah Goldberg wrote that brilliant piece on the Chevy Voltswagen.

It got me thinking. Who pays that eighty percent of the cost of their super cool solar panels? Why – we do. The average American taxpayer. And who has enough money up front to install those solar panels? Average American taxpayers? Nope – only people with higher incomes.

I would like to install solar panels on my own house. But I don’t see how we could come up with $50,000(?) to do it. And do we really want to ask fellow Americans to subsidize eighty percent of that cost?

How many other examples are there? “Make this change to your home or your lifestyle. If you do there is a credit/rebate from the state/federal government”. But even with the credit/rebate it is expensive.

My family was one of the first and only in our small Massachusetts town to have solar water heating back in the late 1970′s. I was and remain proud of this. But now I realize that other people paid for our pride.

Going green is great. Hybrids and solar panels and all the rest! And maybe the government should encourage such moves with credits/rebates. That is not necessarily the issue here. What troubles me is the apparent pattern. Average Americans helping pay for green changes that only wealthier people can afford.

Opinionated Catholic asks why leftists and liberals aka “liberals” and “conservatives” are so obsessed with the complex of stories revolving around NAACP/Tea Party/Fox News/Shirley Sherrod/Obama administration. When there are far more important issues at hand.

How much will these stories affect the average American personally? With respect to Opinionated Catholic they do affect us if indirectly. Political culture -> elections and policy.

But quite rightly he urges us to pay more attention to the Obama administration ban on offshore drilling. How it will destroy up to 100,000 jobs in Louisiana. And adversely effect national security. As well as the national economy. Two days ago there was a rally in Lafayette which 11,000 people attended. Governor Jindal says it powerfully and without notes or a teleprompter.

Which leads to a couple other thoughts.

In the car talking with my wife. She asked “If we lived in some other part of the country would we feel differently?” I said yes. I would probably think “Sorry Louisiana we care about your jobs and economy and all but you need to make this sacrifice for the greater good. You can always move to another state and/or get another job”. I would not understand.

But here is the other thing. How much is this not how the federal government works? We praise our representatives when they bring home the bacon. When they speak up and intervene on behalf of our interests. Which by the way raises questions about Senator Mary Landrieu.

How often do politicians in both major parties go the extra mile to save some jobs or some way of life in some other part of the country and yes at the expense of the common good? Let us be more specific. How much has the Obama administration done to help save(?) jobs in California? Michigan? and so on? States that are in such bad economic shape largely because of years of bad policies?

How much has the Obama administration done to help save jobs in certain select businesses? especially large corporations? Corporations that are in such bad shape largely because of years of bad decisions?

Do people see the inconsistency here? Oh those poor teachers and government workers in California. Take billions of dollars of taxpayer money and send it to them in the form of “economic stimulus”. Oh those poor  workers in automobile manufacturing companies. Take billions of dollars of taxpayer money and bail them out. Let me tell you about the millions of jobs that were saved or created! Let me boast about the “economic stimulus” with specific examples of a few hundred or a few thousand jobs here and there!

But when it comes to the Gulf Coast. When it comes to Louisiana.

By indifference inaction and active obstruction the Obama administration helped turn an environmental crisis into wholesale environmental catastrophe. Which in turn devastates a regional economy still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

And then not only doing nothing to help protect the environment and save jobs also doing something to destroy jobs in Louisiana.

Poor California. Poor Michigan. Poor teachers.* Poor government workers. Poor car companies. Poor home owners. Poor this state. Poor that group. Have some legislation. Have some money. At the expense of the common good.

But Louisiana? Bleep you.

*(Disclose: my wife was a state employee and now a teacher. Our family benefits from the very policies that I criticize. Louisiana will have to face the same day of reckoning that other states are now facing.)

Well sort of.

I only recently realized the possible significance of the current administration’s proposed budget. With its $30 billion in new taxes on the oil and gas industry.

Now tell me. Which states would this affect the most? In which states is the oil and gas industry a particularly important part of the economy?

• Texas
• Alaska
• Louisiana

Out of morbid curiosity is there any political significance to these states?

• Texas – Presidents Bush I and Bush II and a state that votes strongly Republican in national elections
• Alaska – Vice-presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin and a state that…
• Louisiana – Governor Bobby Jindal (who delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s speech and a rising star in the Republican party and is one of the few governors who wants to turn down some of the economic “stimulus” money) and a state that…

Of course this could all be coincidence. Surely President Obama is not trying to drive these very “red” states into economic submission.

What effect would these $30 billion in new taxes have on Louisiana specifically? According to Bayou Buzz:

For Louisiana, investment in oil and gas would likely drop by $6 billion a year, the State General Fund would drop by another $2.3 billion a year, and unemployment would probably exceed 10 percent.

Oh my.

Did you know that Louisiana is the only state in the nation that saw an increase in non-farming jobs last year? (Despite Vice-president Biden’s ridiculous claim we are losing a couple hundred jobs per day – someone hand the man a functioning brain.) I do not make light of the nation’s overall economic downturn but here in Louisiana it has not been that bad. It is starting to become bad for reasons that are not entirely clear but may have to do more with local mistakes than with the national economy. (Huge cuts being made throughout the Louisiana State University system.) But if the Obama administration has its way we could go from being one of the most economically healthy states to one of the worst – and not because of anything our state did. Our state economy already took a nice hit when President Obama overturned the Bush administration’s position on offshore oil exploration and production. Think of all the jobs that would have been created! I mean is not the ostensible goal of the Obama administration to stimulate the economy and see jobs not just saved but even created?

Readers of this blog know that I do care about the environment and alternative forms of energy. Where I depart somewhat from more doctrinaire environmentalism is (a) nuclear energy needs to be a huge part of our non-petroleum future and (b) we will always no matter what still need petroleum (ask any science-fiction writer) and in the meantime strongly support carefully expanding oil exploration and production in the United States and finally (c) believe the best way to promote alternative energy is through (tax) credits and incentives through encouraging their development and use rather than taxing banning and punishing oil and gas based energy (carrots rather than sticks).*

Does the rest of the United States have no appreciation for where its oil and gas comes from? Remember what happened to the price of gas after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and (to a much lesser extent) Gustav? Those were natural disasters over which we had little control. Why does the Obama administration (and those American citizens who supports its policies) want to inflict economic disaster on oil and gas producing states?

H/T Bayou Buzz via Old River Road via Red Stick Rant.

*Interesting tidbit. During the 1970′s there was a short period when the federal government offered a big tax break to homes that converted to solar (water heating). We were one of the very first and few to make this change. Until this year you could use (for example) Google to look at our old house in Massachusetts and still see the solar panel. I was very proud of my parents and of our house. (Today I checked and do not see the panel. Did they remove it?!? Maybe it wore out.)

Obamaism.

Now we have a word to describe the agenda which Krauthammer able summarizes. He begins by noting the significance of his recent speech to the Congress:

If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic — indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. [emphasis added]

“Social democratic manifesto”. Which according to Krauthammer has three main features:

1. Universal health care. Granted not all at once or directly but a “half way step” which is a government sponsored plan so attractive it will starve out the private sector. Readers of this blog may know that I do not oppose the idea of “universal health care” as much as most conservatives. I am sympathetic to the idea. But I of course have grave concerns about its cost implications and quality.
2. Government funded entitlement of education all the way through college.
3. Green energy. Readers of this blog again will realize I am not against green energy – in fact I support it strongly. But how shall we get there? With massive government spending and regulation? Is this really about the environment – or is this about expanding vastly the size and control of government over our no-longer-very-free market economy?

Krauthammer adds:

These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama’s plan for remaking the American social contract.

Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize. Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.

Read the whole thing at Townhall.Com. You do not have to register.

How many of us warned (a) what kind of person Barack Obama really is and (b) the radical left/liberal nature of his agenda. But many – who otherwise would not vote for democratic socialism and/or a man of such radical political leanings driven by an ego emboldened by a degree of hubris that would make Creon (“Antigone”) blush – said “he inspires hope” and represents “change” and we should “give him a chance”.

So how is that working for you so far?

Thanks a lot.

Are you willing now to face the truth and join the resistance?

When we were in New York visiting my mom we went to see a movie with my brother and his family. It was the first time he had seen the preview for the next (now) Bond film. When he saw the title he leaned over and said “Quantum of Solace?!? What the heck does that mean?”

Call me a fool but I typically read review of a movie before I see it. The general pattern was “Quantum of Solace is good but not as good as Casino Royale”. Rotten Tomatoes summarizes:

Brutal and breathless, Quantum Of Solace delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.

I would suggest those reviewers are not getting the point.

“Quantum of Solace” is outstanding and should not be compared especially unfavorably to “Casino Royale”. It is not better or not-as-good. It is different. And therein lies its power.

It is one of only two Bond films that I can remember continue a story line from a previous film (here the death of Vesper Lynd). Despite his consistently brooding stone-face Daniel Craig manages to show that James Bond has… feelings. And is capable of being deeply wounded. He can admit he was wrong. Genuinely touching is the scene where he holds his dying friend. Also nicely handled is when he explains to Camille how to prepare yourself to kill someone. (Watch the clip here.)

The action sequences (chases and fights) are spectacular although one reviewer is correct to note that they are at times muddled and confusing (exactly what is going on? what did Bond do just then?). The new Bond films with Daniel Craig show violence as it truly is – brutal bloody and frightening. Forget the cartoon punch-them-out cartoon violence of the Moore era. Several times I cringed and even said “Ow!” when Bond slammed into a wall, landed onto a stone balcony 20 feet below, or sunk an axe into someone’s foot. This Bond does not smirk and adjust his tie after a grueling kill-or-be-killed hand-to-hand fight. He looks like h#ll.

One thing that always amazed me is how Bond adapts and improvizes when frankly he is deep in the poo and it is hitting the rotary air moving device. Steal a wooden fishing boat to take on two speed boats full of men with machine guns? Yeah sure that sounds like a strategy! And yet somehow Bond pulls it off. The way he flushes out the conspirators in the opera hall is simply spellbinding.

One small point about politics. The story line (which admittedly is a bit too complicated to follow easily) contains a subtle point about the environment. It is not entirely fictional either. But one does not feel the movie is pushing a political-environmentalist agenda. The point is simply there and the story stands on its own. That is how art should be I believe. Art can include politics (or theology or whatever) but the agenda must not define the art.

Finally – what does the film suggest about the motivations for sin and human violence? Yes there is genuine malice and the banality of evil (portrayed well in the character Dominic Greene). There is also dehumanizing brutality (seen more in the character of the general). But to what extent are violence and sin driven by our own brokenness? This is not to excuse it! But to help understand the helplessness of human beings in their sinful condition. As Judy Dench (playing M) says in one of the most memorable lines of the film:

I think you are so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don’t care who you hurt.

Watch the clip here.

Precisely.

I have become a regular peruser of the blog Red Stick Rant by someone whom I probably need to meet. Very conservative. Parishioner at St Luke’s Episcopal Church which arguably is one of the best parishes of any tradition/denomination in the state. And right here in Baton Rouge.

I thought Clifford nailed it with this short piece about the difference a governor makes.

Since Hurricane Gustav missed New Orleans last week, the national media determined it was all a non-event. No story here; move along. No matter that it was worst storm ever to hit Baton Rouge, was more damaging to Louisiana than Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and a half million of us are still without power. But in missing those stories, the national media missed the real story here, which can be summed up in three words:

Governor. Bobby. Jindal.

Read the whole thing here.

I did not vote for Bobby Jindal even when he ran against Kathleen Blanco. The two reasons very simply were:

• I thought he was excessively “wonky” – spouted policy and numbers and proposals at a million miles a minute I found it hard to listen to the guy.
• My wife worked for the state government at the time and a vote for Bobby Jindal was basically a vote against one of our sources of income along with insurance/benefits of which at the time I received none through the church.

I still have some bones to pick with Bobby Jindal on several issues. But as difficult as the last several days have been (personally and for much of Louisiana) Governor Jindal demonstrated exceptional leadership and helped us avoid excessive suffering and is helping the state recover much more quickly.

I doubt anyone on our street recycles as much as we do. We were the first to get one of the big recycling bins – and use it well. We recycle more than we throw away. I support strongly taking steps to conserve energy and explorer other sources of energy (besides petroleum).

But I also care about reality. And what works. And working in the real world.

George Will asks some hard questions about the relationship between Barack Obama’s stated energy policy goals and the space-time continuum we happen to inhabit. He concludes:

There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today’s politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, “saving the planet,” and promising edicts to “require” entire industries to reorder themselves?

In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign’s scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: “Where’s the outrage?” This year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?

Read the whole piece here. You do not need to register.

You want to vote for Senator Obama? Fine. Go for it. But I think we all need to be very clear and up front about just what his policies are. And what relationship they have with reality – or not.

Was channel flipping yesterday and caught several minutes of a special on CNN about the current crisis in oil supply/prices called “Out of Gas” (I think – I cannot find anything about this on the CNN website).

Several minutes with Sir Richard Branson. He explained how the rise in fuel prices means an extra billion dollars per year to operate his airline. How many airlines are struggling and will fold. He used to think one of the problems was a shortage of refineries. He was going to build his own refinery – until Ted Turner and Al Gore got a hold of him and “opened my mind” to the crisis of global warming.

So Sir Branson chose not to build another refinery but to invest three billion dollars in ethanol research and production. (Rising fuel costs means an extra billion per year in fuel expenses. So he spends three billion on ethanol research. Got it.) What was remarkable was that the news special admitted candidly that this “backfired”. CNN admitted that its owner/founder Ted Turner (along with the much feted Albert Gore Jr) may have given Sir Branson poor advice. (I salute and respect Branson’s desire to invest in alternative/renewable energy. But good intentions are not enough – one needs policies and strategies that will cause more good than harm.)

Remember the next time Al Gore is hailed as a true prophet for the cause of managing the planet. When you are filling your car with gas. On the way to the grocery store.

Funny how the Washington Post labels the column.

Anyways – once again I feel soiled bringing politics (especially presidential politics) onto this website. But those few who read know that I am passionate about the environment and energy conservation.

In a nutshell I would say McCain was wrong when he proposed no tax on gasoline during the summer. But Obama is wrong in almost every other way when it comes to energy policy. Just because I care about the environment and energy conservation does not mean I oppose energy exploration/production in any form. Coal is unfairly maligned. We need more nuclear energy. And the United States must allow oil exploration in Alaska and offshore. It might take years to see the benefits – but that is sooner than if we never start.

Charles Krauthammer (correctly) criticizes McCain for his opposition to drilling in Alaska but gives him credit for changing his position on offshore exploration and drilling.

At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the past 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years.

That’s nearly a quarter-century of energy independence. The situation is absurd. To which John McCain is responding with a partial fix: Lift the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling, where a fifth of the off-limits stuff lies.

Read the whole thing here. You might need to register.

What is ironic is that the Candidate of Change slammed McCain for… uh… changing his position. If McCain does not go far enough with regard to oil exploration – be aware that Obama does not go anywhere at all. Obama is right for opposing a gasoline tax moratorium for the summer. Would be nice if he offered any solutions of any kind. Krauthammer also reminds us that McCain has always opposed the ethanol boondoggle – whereas Obama endorses it without reservation.

Remember that the next time you buy gas. On the way to the grocery store.