Politics
Chuck Hagel's confirmation was never really in doubt. Despite the theatrics of Republicans in the Senate, his confirmation was only being slowed down, not blocked. Which brings me back to two previous posts denoting that this is par for the course with the GOP. Even if they actually supported a nominee, they still placed filibusters on a vote to confirm appointees.
When freshman Senator Ted Cruz reiterated fringe speculation (from Breitbart) that some group called "Friends of Hamas" may have given money to Chuck Hagel, it was amusing that anyone took it seriously...because no such group existed. Chuck Hagel isn't some wet-behind-the-ear freshman Republican; he is a twice-elected former senator, war veteran conservative.
That the media continued to echo the wrong narrative (that there remains questions on Benghazi, that Hagel's nomination was being held up by questions over Hagel's finances, etc.) is unsurprising, really.
Iran
I've more or less ignored Iran because almost every time they're in the news, yet again the media simply echos whatever talking points the issuer (Iran) has made. Sending up a monkey and then receiving him alive? A new fighter jet with stealthy components?
It's all just BS that the media did not bother to call out, either because they don't have the ability to make such determinations on their own, or they're just lazy.
Last week was the most hilarious yet: a clearly photoshopped image of Iran's purported new fighter jet, in action. You didn't even need to bother with the analysis of the photo, to know that it was faked. The design of the aircraft itself is impossible: incorrect proportions of the wingspan to fuselage with impossibly small air intakes and a lack of directional vents, combined with conspicuously missing rivets. Iran's new fighter jet was a mock-up of cheap materials coddled together.
All this points to: Iran's leadership is so insecure about its place in the Middle-East and the world, that it has taken to faking accomplishments as a means to try to fool people into believing that the sanctions aren't working -- they are -- and that they know WTF they're doing -- they don't. They don't even know how to properly use Photoshop, for goodness sake.
Oil
Energy independence does not automatically imply price stability nor does it confer foreign policy freedom, but that's how conservatives have spun it, when talking about domestic oil production and the Keystone XL pipeline. So long as a nation relies on petroleum and the global market remains a global market, no amount of oil independence will protect domestic oil from price fluctuations, particularly from spikes resulting from militaristic or political actions.
To achieve true energy independence, one must pursue unlimited sources. Yes, Julian Simon wrote -- correctly -- decades ago that petroleum is infinite, insofar that as a commodity, price increases would force innovation. However, this concept of unlimited petroleum relied on correct market pricing (which I am sure, does not exist) and incurs economic pain the closer you get towards the tail end of a resource.
If you pursue a truly unlimited resource, you still run into economic forces, but of a slightly different beast. First, there is no market incentive to pursue an unlimited supply of energy -- profit is the only incentive of a market economy. Second, the further you move towards non-petroleum energy, the cost of petroleum will drop, creating an incentive to move back to petroleum (a reiteration of Julian Simon's point, but from the opposite face of the coin).
Guns
With the exception of rural areas -- and I mean back country -- guns offer a false sense of security (if I lived on 20 acres, I most certainly would own guns). An oft-cited quote, from people attending gun-rights rallies, is that by virtue of a bunch of people having guns at a gun-rights rally, there will be no violence. You see, these same people actually think that mass murderers are so stupid as to walk straight to a gun-rights rally, in order to commit their heinous act of mass murder.
I suspect that these people equate mental illness with an intellectual deficiency.
And anyway, having a bunch of guns and people in a concentrated area, increases the likelihood of an accidental shooting.
While calling for an uninhibited protection of an (apparently) inviolable 2nd Amendment, some of these very same people have no problems with curtailing violent video games -- Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment. See: Wayne LaPierre, hypocritical NRA guy.
By the way, I called it an apparently inviolable 2nd Amendment for a reason: Wayne LaPierre has noted that it is acceptable to block the mentally ill from owning guns. In other words, LaPierre is soaked in his hypocrisy, from the neck on down.
Immigration
Marco Rubio is just another politician seeking the spotlight. On Saturday, he lambasted a leak from the White House, that presented a first draft of an alternative bill, in case Congress could not get its act together and build their own immigration reform bill, calling it, "dead on arrival".
Criticizing the first draft of an alternative plan (which was only partially revealed) is the sort of stuff you'd expect from a drama queen, not a senator.
But consider: Republicans have alternatively complained that either President Obama has failed to lead or that his involvement is counterproductive and not wanted.
And I leave you with this excerpt from a Time Magazine article on Rubio, the politician:
"Given his previous wobbles on immigration, there’s a broad consensus that political calculations will help drive Rubio’s position on reform but no consensus about where [...] perhaps immigration gives him a chance to prove he can work across the aisle, get something big done and help save his party. But he could also cement his status as a conservative stalwart by rejecting a deal, especially if he manages to dump the blame on Obama."
More or less on script, don't you think? Rubio is all about Rubio, and not about solving the nation's problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment