About Me

Name: m0t0r1zed
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Bush releases oil from SPR

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Friday, September 05, 2008 2:48:15 AM
Bush will release 250,000 barrels of oil due to a request from Citgo due to hurricane Gustav. 
 
http://www.lloyds.com/dj/DowJonesArticle.aspx?id=403053
 
Hmm, isn't Citgo owned by Venezeula?  And Pelosi took a swing at Bush over the release.  Whateva.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama - O'Reilly foreign policy interview

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:40:37 PM
Just watched the O'Reilly interview with Obama.
 
So ... essentially Obama says he'll do exactly what we're already doing - just better, and then he takes credit for shaping Bush's policy if it is successful.  Pretty funny.
 
Hmm, interesting that Obama doesn't include Iran as part of the network of terror despite their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and suicide bombers.  Also, his policy towards Iran is exactly the same as Bush's current policy - except, of course, Obama says that he'll do it better.
 
Furthermore, I don't see how you can attach strings to military aid to Pakistan so that they'll only use it against terrorists.  Maybe we'll invent smart rifles that can only shoot terrorists ... yeah, right.  Again, not any significant policy difference.  Also, Pakistan is a delicate and complex situation.  Openly applying too much pressure could have the opposite results of what you wanted and could strengthen fundamentalists and push the country into chaos.
 
In regards to O'Reilly's stance that the Iraq war was not necessary.  It depends.  O'Reilly, as well as most Americans, didn't understand the primary reason why we invaded Iraq.  Most people focused on tenuous links to terrorists (I think O'Reilly used Saddam's support for suicide bombers, blah blah blah) or on WMDs or on oil.  Those were all tangential issues.  The true, underlying reason was a long term, strategic choice to reshape the entire Middle East - an area replete with terrorists and despots (i.e. the "nexus").  It was a big gamble.  Every war is a dangerous uncertainty, but Bush rolled the dice on a preemptive war to take out a potential threat before it fully materialized.  Essentially, imagine the Middle East as a giant, ticking bomb.  Bush wanted to defuse it before it blew up and caused another 9-11 event to occur.  An oversimplified analogy, but hey ....
 
Iraq had looked like a fiasco, but now, we see that the gamble may still pay off.  Bush has won two wars, and he has established footholds for future American influence in the Middle East.  Most leaders in the Middle East should see the handwriting on the wall.  The fact that America did not pull out of Iraq prematurely is key.  Otherwise, those leaders would have gotten a very different message.
 
A deal between the Israelis and Palestinians would accelerate this change, as well as a subsequent, comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and Arab states.  Also vital to success is the political and economic development of Iraq as a model nation-state for a modern, pluralistic, and capitalistic society within the heart of the Middle East.
 
It's also interesting to see how Syria moves.  It seems like they are hedging their bets and trying to strengthen old ties with Russia again, but I think this is just so they can use the Russians as a counterweight should the Americans apply too much pressure on them to reform too quickly.  Hard to tell since I'm just a poorly informed, outside observer.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They still don't get it.

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:34:51 AM
They still don't get it.
 
It's funny how the media talking heads always have an oddly perplexed look when their objectivity is being challenged.  The liberal media elites persist in believing that they are fair and unbiased - despite the large amount of evidence proving otherwise. 
 
Look at Roger Simon's inane blog piece, and you will see an example of simple self-deception at work.
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html
 
Conservatives are not decrying a thorough investigation.  They are outraged over a lack of balance where conservatives are eviscerated and liberals are handled with kid gloves.  They are angered by careless reporting rife with factual inaccuracies and stories cobbled together with innuendo and unnamed sources.  It seems that when the stories are trashing a conservative, the same level of meticulous fact-checking isn't required.  Naturally, if the stories were about a liberal, they'd sit on the story for months and months and be very reluctant to print it even then.
 
However, this isn't a problem restricted to only liberals.  Conservatives also have a blind spot when it comes to being critical of their own.  This is a problem with human nature in general.  We tend to protect those that we identify with and attack those that we perceive as outsiders.
 
The mainstream media is dominated by liberals, so this type of biased treatment is to be expected.  However, the lack of objectivity can be particularly egregious at times and counterproductive to thoughtful discussion.
 
For example, during the Democratic primaries some commentators were discussing exit poll results where Hillary had won the white vote by a huge margin.  One of the poll questions was whether race was an important factor in the person's vote.  A large number responded, "Yes"  and immediately, the pundits expressed dismay that these voters were openly admitting that they were racists.
 
Their interpretation of the exit poll question on race was stupendously misguided.  What these hermetically sealed, intellectually isolated, bubble-people failed to consider is that the voters of Appalachia weren't voting against Obama because they were anti-black.  They were voting against Obama because they felt that he was anti-white and looked down on them.  The impact of the Rev. Wright controversy and Obama's comments about "bitter Americans" completely went over the heads of the media pundits.
 
This is an example where two people can look at the same objective facts, but come away with two completely different subjective interpretations.  Sadly, it was quite evident that the commentators had preconcieved notions that the people of Kentucky and West Virginia were just a bunch of racist hicks, and they were unable to think their way out of this self-limiting box.
 
I see, hear, and read this so often in others, that I immediately always doubt my own opinions.  Being self-critical is ... oh whatever.  blah blah blah blah blah.  Man, I feel tired.  Trying to write this blog has been a pita.  Mentally too tired to think clearly and maintain focus.  la la la la la.  I'm gonna take a nap.
 
oh, one thing tho - luv the live mic stoof. dey shuld run with it and do a news reality show. get to see what people rly think and how dey behave.  peggy noonan has added a fine gem to the treasure trove of get a shovel, do it live, and cut his nuts off.  we want ... no, we demand moar. :p
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media feeding frenzy - analysis?

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:08:05 PM
The level of the media attacks and savagery against Gov. Palin in such a short amount of time has been astounding.  In less than a week, she and her family have undergone more scrutiny than Obama has during the entire campaign.  Many attack pieces have contained inaccuracies, been rather flimsy, and broken traditional rules within the media (such as using children as an indirect ploy to attack the candidate).
 
So, what in the world is going on?
 
I believe it's pretty simple.  The media was simply caught flat-footed (aside from Glenn Beck) and know very little about her.  They are in scramble mode and running around like headless chickens.  A lot of the issues that the media is now bringing up against Palin are rather trivial and poorly thought-out.  Had McCain hinted that she was a serious choice for VP several months ago, the media would have had time to dig through the trash and filter out the garbage.  These haphazard stories coming out now would have been aired more gradually and with better scrutiny, and she would have gone from an unknown to a known entity.
 
Biden has many more strikes against him compared to Palin, but his scandals are all "old news."  With Palin, everything is "new news" - even the most petty allegations.
 
So right now, the media and the DNC are thrashing about trying to acquire more info and sleaze.  She seemed too good to be true for conservatives, and the media is set on proving that it was.  The liberal talking heads couldn't stand parroting the positive, Republican talking points over and over, and rushed to find some dirt to rebutt them, and flush the unfamiliar taste out of their mouths. 
 
Given the known liberal slant of the mainstream media, their behavior shouldn't come as a surprise.  What is unusual is that their slipshod, shotgun-approach attacks are all happening in a very compressed time frame, which makes their bias brutally obvious and excessive, since normally the bias is meted out over a longer period and better camouflaged under a guise of rational arguments.
Tags: you're it.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two heartbeats

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:08:18 AM

John "One foot in the grave" McCain made an excellent choice in picking Sarah Palin - a YOUNG candidate proven to be fit for office having begat many generations of children.  Contrast this with the irresponsible pick by Obama in choosing an ANCIENT Joe Biden, an atrophied relic who almost passed away from an aneurysm.  The prospect is most unsettling.  A geriatric Joe Biden, already showing obvious signs of dementia and senile rambling, would be just one heartbeat away from the presidency. Two heartbeats, and you have someone with crazy eyes as President.

Shame on Obama for putting politics first and not picking a robust and athletic running mate with a sound mind and body!  Shame!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

suspected al-Qaida attack in Turkey

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:42:51 PM
 
I'm surprised that this kind of attack hasn't happened in the US yet, but with a suicide squad against a target of high symbolic value - such as a national monument, which would be less well-defended, or if they could muster larger numbers, a suicidal assault against an institution of power.  Hmm, not sure, but haven't really thought about it that much.  Some reasons floating around in my head, but ... dunno.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush - buffoon or great leader?

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:23:20 PM
Funny piece from the UK Telegraph by Sameh El-Shahat.

Holy Cows: George W Bush - buffoon or great leader?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals dubious of democracy in Iraq

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Monday, July 07, 2008 12:43:18 PM
Read an opinion piece by Lawrence E. Harrison for the Christian Science Monitor about his doubts about democratization of Iraq.
 
Consider what happened with US occupation in Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
 
He makes interesting points; however, I have to disagree with him.

These three examples demonstrate how good intentions expressed through military force and money can be frustrated by cultures that are not congenial to democratic institutions. The Bush administration's idea that "These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society" ignores the lessons not only of these three cases, but also of the more generalized problems of democratization in the Islamic world, Africa, and Latin America.

Surely past and present Bush advisers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice have read Alexis de Tocqueville's classic "Democracy in America." But they – and Senator McCain – must have forgotten its overriding lesson: When it comes to the viability of democracy, more than anything else, culture matters.
 
Japan's culture was more foreign to democracy than any of the countries mentioned (unless you believe "god-emperors" are congenial to democracy).
 
Ultimately, it was not about culture.  It was very, very, very, very, very simple.  Japan and Germany were vital to American security interests, and so America was more willing to put in blood and treasure for the effort to succeed.  Iraq will probably succeed for the same reason.  Iraq is key to American strategic interests in the Middle East.  Even Obama, who is the anti-war candidate, has stated during the debates that if conditions in Iraq worsened, he would put more soldiers back in to stabilize Iraq.
 
America did not want to get involved with the mess that is the Middle East for a long, long time, understanding the complexity, cost, and violence associated with long-term involvement in an area rife with dictators, religious extremists, and tribal divisions.  9-11 changed all of that.  The US essentially took on the direct role of policeman of the Middle East and began an active strategy to bring about change.
 
Also, one of the reasons why Iraq was invaded was because of culture.  Many of the neo-cons felt that Iraq was the most Westernized and secular out of the bunch, and so would be easiest to modernize into the Germany / Japan of the Middle East.  Culture may help foster native growth of democracy, but ultimately, force of will, power, and monetary investment are necessary to transplant democracy into a foreign nation resistant to democracy.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The invisible elephant of the Middle East

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:51:18 AM
It's strange how commentators often say that Iran is the big "winner" in the Middle East.  To me, that is just very odd - like a gigantic blind spot that cannot see the obvious.  The United States with its 150,000 troops planted in the heart of the Middle East, the nation that toppled two governments to the east and west of Iran, has somehow become a great, invisible elephant to some people.
 
The supreme hegemon in the Middle East is the United States.  The future of the Middle East will be shaped by the US, and there is no country strong enough to oppose the US.  The only power that could be a threat is religion, and the US tries very carefully to not come into conflict with it.  Syria seems to have realized this reality.  Iran, despite its bluster, is afraid of it.  The only people that do not seem to see the handwriting on the wall is ... well, whatever.
 
Although critics of the Bush administration will be loathe to admit it, Bush won two major wars during his presidency - and two very difficult ones due to the guerilla tactics of the adversary.  Mistakes were made, but the notion that wars should be simple, cheap, and easy is just stupid.  I guess I am one of the few people that still would approve of Bush, if asked.  I think he, as well as the rest of America, went through one of the most difficult and divisive periods in recent history.  It is understandable that people are tired and worn out from the past eight years, but I do think that history will judge him favorably.  (It's a bit annoying how that has become a talking point ... bleh. I was saying that years ago in discussions.)
 
Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
 
Bush really did have to carry a huge burden.  After 9-11, the weight of the entire world was truly on his shoulders.  Imagine having to stand on the ruins of the World Trade Center, where thousands of Americans still lie dead and buried, knowing that the eyes of all Americans and the entire world is watching you - and only you - for guidance, strength, and leadership.  Consider also the followup anthrax attacks against the US, and the spectre of nuclear terrorism that must have haunted Bush in his nightmares when he slept (he is, afterall, human).
 
Just think about it.  What would you have done, if you had been in his shoes?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

India's economy

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:15:25 PM
oil is hitting india hard.  not an economist (heheh, i repeat that a lot), but u would think that demand in rapidly expanding / developing economies is more elastic than in established nations, so the reason being touted for the high price of oil (china and india) should cut both ways. the high price of oil should put a hard brake on their growth.  india imports 70% of its oil, and its oil and fertilizer subsidies are costing them 10% of their GDP.

excerpt from businessweek article:
In the past month, India has joined the list of the wounded. The country is reeling from 11.4% inflation, large government deficits, and rising interest rates. Foreign investment is fleeing, the rupee is falling, and the stock market is down over 40% from the year's highs. Most economic forecasts expect growth to slow to 7%—a big drop for a country that needs to accelerate growth, not reduce it.

sauce: India's Economy Hits the Wall
 
heh, 7% growth doesn't sound that bad, tho i guess in this case it's relative.
 
as long as china and india continue to grow at a decent clip, i wonder if that will provide more psychological support for pushing prices even higher? 
 
i don't think drilling will help prices unless it creates a stampede by luck of timing. just guessing it might cause a short drop, but then speculators/investors/zombie pandas will rationalize that any real oil coming out from new drilling will take years or decades and push prices back up again. still, it would add to the mental stress of oil speculators / investors worried about when to jump out, heheh, and reduce the threshold needed to pop the bubble.
 
i really don't see the bubble popping until some major economies start tanking - or enough psychological stressors accumulate to scare off investors (approve drilling, pass regulations to tighten speculation, fed calls a meeting to do a magical dance and offering to the god of interest rates, Bush mentions opening up the SPR casually in a conversation while kissing Ahmadinejad tenderly and sweetly, demand for oil drops, china and india reduce subsidies further, OPEC does something or other or not or something, etc.). dunno. blah blah blah. why am i still even blogging anymore? ('''\(o,...,O)/''')  =^.^=  /\/\(';::;')/\/\
Tags: oil   India  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mother of All Bubbles!

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:29:15 AM
just wanted to say that phrase for no good reason. ^_^

coal and steel took a dive yesterday. wonder how that will pan out? recover and drop again? keep rising? interesting.

article about the rise in commodities prices from the monetary and currency pov.  written in the distant past of Jun 26 (less than a week ago) during the halcyon days of when oil was under $140. :p
When Central Bankers Clash, Stock Markets can Crash
 
also, i found this article interesting - especially the chart. for mentally challenged people, like myself, pictures help - and it has pretty colors!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

merrily over the cliff we go, tra la la

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:09:01 AM
 
CNN story - counterargument that it is supply and demand and not speculation based on IEA report
Speculation not to blame for oil - report
 
just some questions about the CNN article - some excerpts from it.
 
Since 2003, the volume of investment funds in commodity markets - especially oil - rose from about $15 billion to $260 billion, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which issued the report.
 
not important? huh?
 
this is the counterargument.

The IEA argues that if speculation drives prices too high, the market would be unbalanced. Either demand would fall off, or stockpiles would rise. Neither has happened. In fact, global demand for oil products has surpassed supply in every quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Fast-growing economies like China and India are consuming more and more oil. Meanwhile, it's difficult for oil-producing countries to quickly ramp up output. The IEA also made the argument that many commodities - such as coal and rice - are showing similar price increases, even those without the possibility of speculation.

just thinking it through. dunno, maybe my reasoning is flawed. whatever.
1 - it's hard to adjust oil/energy usage quickly - lag time. also there have been signs of demand drop off in unnecessary things.
2 - oil isn't a final product. it's often the starting point for manufacturing other products. instead of demand drop off, you will just get cost added to the product or reductions elsewhere (no peanuts from airlines :p).
3 - evidence for this should be increased prices and inflation across the board (since energy costs affect almost everything) - which is what seems to be happening.
4 - oil isn't a free market system. nationalization, price supports, cartels, flying monkeys, etc. skew supply and demand.
5 - oh, also coal is going up because of high oil prices.
 
i could be wrong. seems to me people can be divided up into 1) people that know (or think they know) what is going on, 2) people that really don't know so flutter about (like me, i'm a pretty butterfly!), 3) people that know, but lie because they have self-interest at stake, 4) people that don't know, so by default support the side in alignment with their interests / ideology.
 
my hunch has been that it's speculators (even tho i like the whole free market thing). but i'm not an economist, and i don't have the time to teach myself about the oil industry, speculation, commodities markets, neat ways to game the system, russian energy mafia, blah blah blah.  to give an opinion that i was fairly secure about, i'd have to invest a lot more time.
 
so whatever. dun care no more. just following the story to see what happens and if my guesses were wrong, where my thinking went astray. and why i am idjiot. i suggested some simple ideas to implement for a quick drop in oil prices. but dun matter.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

google wesley clark and world war 3 ;)

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Monday, June 30, 2008 12:51:52 PM
i'm not a fan of Wesley Clark. i remember reading this BBC story back in 2000.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

700 pg historical study by Army on Iraq

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:57:25 PM
There's stuff in the news about the release of a new 700 pg. historical study on the US Army's role in Iraq.  You can order a personal copy from the Government Printing Office or download directly.  It's a big 103 MB pdf file.  You can download a free pdf file reader from Adobe if you don't have one.
 
I haven't read the study yet, and I'm not going to spin, shape, or select from it.  If you're interested, read it for yourself.  That's when the Internet is at its best - direct, primary sources without any media filters between you and the information.  If you're not interested, then that's okay too.  Your choice. ^_^
 
The Combat Studies Institute site where you can get the study: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CSI/OP2.asp
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An important message from Fred Flintstone about the oil crisis

Posted by m0t0r1zed on Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:11:03 AM
My fellow citizens of Bedrock,

I blame the current oil mess on the dinosaurs and their irresistably yummy, oily goodness cooked deep within the heart of the earth.
 
Thank you.
 
(Oh, btw in addition to coal liquefaction, a fellow blogger says that Raytheon has developed RF technology for extracting oil from oil shale for as low as $10/barrel.
http://theoilpatchplug.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/26/we_can_be_energy_independent_,_really_yes_we_can.thtml

So why is oil at $140 again?  YABBA DABBA DOO!!!)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »