Not a Literal Connection, Dude

A lot of people are all up in arms about some anti-colonialism comment in some article written by D-Souzie. He thinks colonialism isn't something we should be against? I dunno. I've been too busy writing down anti-american names so that – when we finish up in SandNiggerstan – I'll be useful in directing our flying killer robots at home where they are still so desperately needed. Enjoy your wedding party, libtards!

I managed to get far enough into the article to find this beautiful, beautiful peace of logic:

More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?

I was confused by this at first until I realized that Dinesh meant it was strange that a professionally intellectual would argue that excessive use of oil would never lead to reckless exploitation of oil resources.

I may finish the article, in which case, updates will go below.

Update:

Yup, as predicted.

Obama's foreign [Uh, what country is New York in again? -ed.] policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.

I guess missing blatant connections is just this guy's thing...

Update II:

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

Uh, Dinesh, if I might... uh.. borrow some idiocy. I don't see any connection there!

Sweet

ur doin it rong

An Outwelling of Charity

I'm very surprised that Megan hasn't been screaming her head off about the beauty of BP's selfless decision to give millions of impoverished shore birds direct delivery of free crude oil. You'd think she'd be all over that sheening example of corporate benevolence and the utter uselessness of government efforts to solve our problems.

Calling Brad....

Dude, where brad at? Has Atlas Shrugged eaten him whole? I don't like having to work this much. Plus, there's a lot of stupid not getting the scrutiny it so deserves. Oh well.

For today's tidbit, let's take a look at one of McNotbasedinreality's latest pile of bullshit:

Alex Massie on the bailout:

The perception that GM and Ford and Chrysler build crappy cars is just another obstacle to recovery. And of course it's a perception that, even if out of date, is predicated upon the bitter memories of the crap cars they really did build. Turns out it takes a while for that perception to fade. One more reason why you shouldn't crap on your own brand. So the current crisis, driven by poor management and stupid unions, is also built upon the junk they spent years selling to gullible consumers taken in by the faux-patriotism of "Buying American".

Hmm, the perception is out of date, huh? Well, anecdotal evidence sure doesn't help that out. My 1996 Thunderbird was falling apart at the seems before it got totaled, with a new tranny, head gasket (twice), and other expensive repairs all before 80k miles. Compare that to my 1982 Integra which made it almost to 200k and then died when routine maintenance costss surpassed its worth. It was still getting 33 mpg highway at 13 years old. Now my 2003 Saab (now a GM company) is falling apart with less than 50k on it. Consumer Reports can give you so more concrete examples but it's pretty safe to say that American cars have been shit for the entirety of my 26 years. Maybe the new ones aren't going to get shredded by a stiff wind, but it'll take 10-20 years to find that out. So, yeah, she's starting off strong with her usual quoting-someone-who's-full-of-shit style. I swear she does this just to make what she writes look less stupid by comparison. Speaking of stupid:

That's one thing the "Car Czar" can't fix: the perception that the company apparently needs nearly unlimited access to government funds in order to prop up its failing operations is hardly going to restore America's faith that its automakers make good cars.

Um, by perception, you mean "actuality," right?

On the other hand, maybe people will buy them just to stop the tax drain. If they're going to take the money one way or another, you might as well get a car out of it.

Yeah, people might do that. There is a chance that people are as mind numbingly stupid as Megan is. Certainly could happen.

In another post, she rolls in some more bullshit:

One thing is clear about the bailout: congress intends to use it to push GM et. al. into manufacturing more fuel efficient cars.

Yeah, that's a horrible idea. Who the fuck wants a fuel efficient car these days?

When gas prices were high, a lot of people blamed Detroit's troubles on the fact that they hadn't learned to make awesome small cars. But Toyota isn't so successful in the US because of the Yaris and the Corolla; its core business, like Honda's, is American-sized sedans, station wagons, luxury cars, and so on.
(...)
But they're not making their money on gas-sipping hybrids and compacts, either. They, like Detroit, are making their money by selling cars that will need a pretty big refit to pass the new CAFE standards. The top selling cars in the US last January (midway through the price spike in oil, before the financial crisis):

1. Toyota Camry: 31,601
2. Honda Accord: 23,957
3. Nissan Altima: 21,635
4. Honda Civic: 20,993
5. Toyota Corolla: 20,736
6. Chevrolet Impala: 17,544
7. Chevrolet Cobalt: 17,310
8. Chevrolet Malibu: 14,105
9. Pontiac G6: 13,942
10. Ford Focus: 11,600

The Impala gets about the same MPG as the Camry, the Accord, and the Altima--actually, slightly better (32 rather than 31 highway).

Anyone that can tell me what the fuck she's talking gets a free referral to a psychiatrist. She's saying they aren't making money on fuel efficient cars because their top sellers are getting 32 mpg??!?!??! And what fucking CAFE standards is she talking about? 32 is as high as shit gets when it's not a hybrid. Her Mini only gets 34!!!!! As a side note, including a number on those cars in a top ten listy is complete bullshit. People aren't buying those cars because they're any good. They're getting bought by rental companies and government agencies who get great deals for buying in bulk and don't give a fuck if their cars perform like shit.

It is true that when gas prices rose, there was a temporary surge in the prices companies could charge for hybrids and small cars, but though I think that the memory of recent price spikes will offer some support to the smaller car market, I also think we'll see that market head back down along with oil prices. In short, the small, fuel efficient car market is still not some sort of gold mine that the Big Three have stupidly overlooked.

Right, cause the recent surge in oil shows us that oil is always cheap. I'm sure the downturn of its price recently is proof positive of that and not the overreaction to the burst of a bubble combined with the crashing of an economy. No sir. Cheap oil is here to stay forever. The fact that oil is still twice as expensive as it was less than 10 years ago is completely irrelevant and you're a NAZI for mentioning that. OIL IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND WILL ALWAYS BE THERE!!!!

The question is, when the desire to make the companies refocus on fuel efficiency conflicts with the desire to make them profitable, which way does the Car Czar go? Because those goals are only reconcileable[sic] if oil prices shoot back up and stay there.

Duh, cause, people will always hate fuel efficient cars and not pay any money for them forever and ever and that's why GM is making so much money these days. They smartly realized this fuel efficiency thing is just a fad and that the real money is in the gas guzzlers.

For fuck's sake, she can't even be right about the fucking PAST! She's still clinging to the notion that GM can't make money on fuel efficient cars. How dumb is she? If that were true, their sales figures wouldn't be slumping like the fucking Hunch Back Of Notre Dame. WHAT IN THE FUCKING HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS STUPID WOMAN?

Those Damn Empires

Megan's piped up a few times now about the conflict in Georgia. Cleverly, she's referenced the same song in the titles of two of her posts. Seriously, she's not even phoning it in anymore. She's smoke signaling it in.

There's a smattering of stupid in all around, but the main underlying idiocy and bias is her deeply furrowed brow over those pesky pinkos (uh.. shit, what color are they now? Whatever, they'll always be commies!!!!!!!!) trying to rebuild their empire.

So let's compare and contrast a couple of conflicts and Megan's views on them.

If a country wants to invade another country thousands of miles away, that has no shared ethnic or cultural background, has made no direct threats in decades, and coincidentally contains large amounts of a very precious resource, invading it is ok. That's not empire building. That's just fighting the good fight

On the flip side, if a country that borders you -and contains two regions cultural and ethnically similar to you that have declared autonomy and indicated a strong willingness to become a part of your country- sends their army into one of said disputed regions, well, you're just a damn power hungry lunatic for thinking that you can send troops there yourself! How dare those Russians try to force those South Ossetians and Abkhazians to join the country that they want to be a part of! Where will they stop? HAVE THEY NO SENSE OF DECENCY?!?!?!?

I guess, then, that Megan would be OK with Russia invading Mexico or something.

Now, before someone points out that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me admit that I may not know what I'm talking about vis-a-vis the Russia-Georgia conflict (Though, from what little I've read, no one knows what the hell is going on in the Caucasus). Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure that Russia hasn't done a number of things wrong during this conflict. However, Megan's accusations that Russia is attempting to rebuild its empire is based on a combination of jack and shit. I got curious about the situation and actually read a couple of articles, almost all of which indicated that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would both love nothing more than to be absorbed by Russia and at the very least want nothing to do with Georgia. So, once again, Megan doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Shocking, ain't it?

For a bonus kicker, she expresses dismay that America should ZOMG DO SOMETHING BEFORE THE RUSSIANS ARE KNOCKING DOWN OUR DOORS AGAIN!!!! About what exactly should be done, she remains unsurprisingly silent. Blind ideology is her thing, not actual solutions to problems.

I think I have an idea, though. It involves our armed forces. Guess what it is? That's right; let's start another war! YIPPEE! It's been a while since we killed us some Ruskies! Nothing says "doing something" like an F-16! Hoooo doggie!

Good morning!

It's time for stupid! Gotta start the day off right! Let's to turn to our econo expert to see what insights into the markets she has!

Oil falls free

Twenty dollars to whomever can tell me what in the fucking hell that title is supposed to mean. And, to go back to an old haunt, when the fuck is she going to start capitalizing titles? She finally got brow beaten into knocking off the obnoxious "block quoting herself" shit (You're welcome Megs), so there is some hope. But the shift key.... it's really not that far away. Right there, by your left and right pinkies. Come on, baby, give it a whirl!

I think we can officially say there was a sizable speculative premium in oil, given that major troubles in one of the world's major oil-producing regions did little to halt its fall.

Really, queen dipshit? That's how we know? I thought it was because oil surged upwards like 1000% in about 4 days and then plummeted downwards another 500% like two minutes later. No, that's not speculation? Hmm, okie, I guess it's a good thing there is another war in the Caucasus. Those are always the best economic indicators.

On the other hand, if that speculative premium was $40--the mid-to-high range of analyst estimates--then we're close to having wiped it out at this point. Don't start pricing minivans just yet.

Wait, you mean the speculation didn't just start on it's own as if by magic? Are you telling me that people started betting that oil was going to go up in price because it was actually going to go up in price? GOD DAMN IT WOMAN! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU TO SLOW DOWN AND STOP BLOWING MY MIND!!!

She is such an idiot. She is telling us now -weeks after it became clear that oil was overpriced- that there was speculation involved. Just like when she told us it isn't is isn't a recession(that's the current diagnosis, right?). Plus, Mrs. Insight is telling us not to get too excited, cause oil is still pretty expensive. THANKS MC BRILLIANT. We all fucking noticed that oil is still FOUR FUCKING TIMES HIGHER than it was like, 6 years ago, and that gas is still AN ARM AND A FUCKING LEG PER GALLON.

Even if oil were to miraculously go back down, it would still be idiotic to go back to our gas wasting mentality. Have you noticed how we got hit the hardest by the recent price increases? You think that might have something to do with the fact that other countries learned their lesson in the 70's??!??!?!?!?!!?

SO....FUCKING....STUPID.... AHHHGHHGHGHGGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHGGHGHGHGHHGHG!!!!

I hate economics and I could do her "econoblogging" better than she does. Who the fuck was in charge of hiring her? They need to be fucking hung.

Do You Have Any Ideas Or...Oh, Just Forget It

Megan weighs in on the latest example of why humanity should be erased from the planet before it really hurts itself.

Except that she didn't say anything new, or do anything but explain the obvious to us. The quote from hilzoy ("Hilzoy views McCain's desire to allow Georgia into NATO as sheer madness:" Mlle. McA. can't even do a link properly. Miss, this is not your own crummy recipe blog for your galpals, it's supposed to be for the admittedly degenerate web presence of a once important & prestigious American magazine. Try to give two shits about it.) by itself would have provided a public service, but Megan's addition is just nothing.

Another way to look at the question is: are we going to allow Russia to reassemble the old Russian empire? At its heart, that's what this is about. Maybe we should; maybe it's none of our business who Russia decides to invade, or what puppet governments they decide to prop up, so long as they don't share a border with Germany.

I don't mean that sarcastically--I can make all sorts of arguments in favor of this attitude. On the other hand, it has obvious, dramatic costs, including the fact that Russia's imperial ambitions are unlikely to stop at the Georgian border.

Well, if you ask the question, shouldn't you make some attempt to answer it? Guess not.

If this war ends up with Russia occupying Georgia, NATO will probably be worse off than it would have been if it had let Georgia join--though to be sure, the US might still be better off. I don't know how likely such a scenario is. But it's been clear for a long time that Russia's goal is to regain its former imperial borders, effectively if not nominally.

That's it. Although the last time I checked (sometime after the break-up of Czechoslovakia) the United Snakes were part (& a pretty big one) of NATO. How NATO could be "worse off" (ugly, stupid phrase, by the way) but the USofA somehow in better shape is beyond this reporter. Especially as US foreign policy toward Georgia, as toward most of the states in Central Asia that have or are near OIL, is to send the US military to train their militaries, & then to sell them weapons & equipment while promising that the US paper tiger has their backs. The military-industrial complex is going to be losing client-states. Can't have that.

So, Megatron, do you have any ideas or suggestions? Where exactly do you stand on this? Yes, it's been obvious for a while to all but perhaps soul-searcher Bush that Putin & the new Russki P. M. want to be big men on the world stage again, but how are "we" to stop them, if "we" should at all? But Megan "can make all sorts of arguments in favor of this attitude," & apparently any other "attitude," w/o coming to any decision.

Chavez is so very very very bad!

Megan has had it up to HERE with corrupt rulers going against the will of the people, which is why she's so mad at congress and Bush Hugo Chavez right now!

After his proposed constitutional reforms were rejected by voters, Chavez seems set to go ahead and enact them anyway by decree:

<snip>

One might have asked why Chavez needs emergency decree powers during an oil boom when his country is at peace. Just askin' . . .

One might never ask such a thing about an American president, though.

Remember, peace is war. Recession is prosperity ZOMG BAD!!!!! PROSPERITY!!! Stupid is intelligent.

Obviously, the only solution is to invade Venezuala to liberate those oil wells people from that horrible democratically elected president dictator.

How Dare You Lose Money?

Short Megan McArdlge:

To whom should coporate boards be responsible?:
Companies that try to do good at the risk of even the smallest amount of profit are unAmerican and selfish.

Small is beautiful:
People that are buying small cars are irrational to think that they may save money from reduced fuel usage.

BONUS STUPID: Megan is saying people are putting too high a premium on small cars, but for some reason is flying all the way to Florida to pick up her small car.

English Only, Please

So you needn't give our muse a click, we reproduce in full (Save for the date & time.):

By request: growth in the Middle
East
Another reader asks:

How much growth in the mideast is attibutable to the rise in the price of oil, how much to normal growth, and how much to the removal of the Saddam regime?

This is of course hard to calculate, but in my opinion the positive value of the second derivative is entirely due to oil.

Does this mean that Ms. McArdle believes that growth in the Mideast is due to oil prices? Again, is she trying to be funny? Poking fun at academic double-speak? Aren't The Atlantic & its web logs intended for a general, albeit educated, audience? Or is it just me?

Perhaps if Megan briefly explained some of this crap she'd be providing a useful service. But if you can't keep it brief, please don't bother.

Retarded then, retarded now

Oil hit nearly $140 a barrel today. Was it really only a few years ago that I was writing articles for The Economist questioning whether oil could stay above $40 a barrel for any length of time?

Yes, only a year ago you were just as much of a clueless moron as you are now. Hooray

Someone just emailed "If I had even an ounce of spine, I'd be shorting oil like crazy now." My reply: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

Yes, irrationally the market is seeing an increase in price of something of which we are running out. SHORT IT NOW AND YOU'LL GO BROKE MAKE MILLIONS!!!!!

Also, with regards to the question raised in her title as to where she can trade her blood for oil. The answer is IN IRAQ! GO NOW BEFORE THE DEAL ENDS!!!!!

More Badness

A thoughtful, caring blogger speaks out:

That's why HIllary [sic] is here with a plan. Specifically, a plan to discourage investment in the oil industry through a windfall profits tax, and to destroy the mortgage market by freezing foreclosures and interest rates. That way, no one has to worry about oil or houses, because there won't be any to worry about. That's just the kind of thoughtful, caring politician she is.

Just a note, Miss "Really, I Do Think Global Warming Is Real & Serious": If the oil industry were making the slightest actual effort to develop sources of energy beyond polluting, terror-enabling, going-to-run-out-pretty-damn-soon oil, it might be worth it to let them loose. As it's been 35 yrs. since the first "Oil Crisis," & Big Oil has yet to wise up & put some of its eggs in another basket, while remaining satisfied to rake in billions from its old business model, well...there won't be anyone left to buy their gas & oil once the economy has collapsed under the weight of fuel prices &/or workers not being able to get to their crummy jobs anymore, whether it's 'cause they can't afford gas or there's no more gas & no alternative thereto.

As for mortgages & house-owning:

A) Property is theft.

B) How can any of your short-lived species pretend to "own" the earth? Give me a break from your imaginary lines drawn on pieces of paper.

I'm No Foodie, But...

I won't go into the rant about the rise of food fetishism in the '80s being a displacement of sexual whatnot based on fear of AIDS, which I mentioned in the comments to Clem's response to Megatron's first "Kitchen sink" item. Indeed, as I'm soon out to Trader Joe's™ for some peanut butter w/ my new food stamp card (it's coming out of your pocket, McArdle!) I'm just going to drive by this one. It's cookbook recommendations. No Joy of Cooking? Links to Amazon, though. Someone's maximizing their efficiency.

Did you know that Julia Child and I were the same height?

Now ask me if I care. By the way, English major, are you both dead? Or is that just how you type?

Jasper White is our seafood go-to guy; we're particularly fond of his lobster book.

May we have a moratorium on the phrase "go-to guy?" Thank you. (She's slipped into the first person plural because she's referring to her family now. Thought she'd totally rejected all their left-wing trendiness.)

Now the best part. Referring to Betty Crocker's (not a real person, but a corporate simulacrum) 1950 picture cookbook, she rightfully mocks Betty's attitude:

I wouldn't touch their "foreign" recipes if you paid me.

Oh, those quaint, unsophisticated Americans of the '50s. Tee hee. "Foreign." Have you ever read that James Lileks fellow? He makes fun of stuff like this, & Andrew thinks he's a hoot.

Four paragraphs later:

I don't have recommendations for other ethnic cuisines, either because I don't think there are super good ones, or because it's a cuisine (Chinese, Indian) that I don't cook. Though considering the state of ethnic food in much of the district, I may have to start.

How amusing to emphasize your ethnocentrism w/ the word "ethnic." Though maybe she's just emphasizing her ignorance. A "cuisine," by definition, is "ethnic." Except, of course, "American" food. It's just, you know, food. Well, pemmican, corn & taters are "American" food. Anything the Euros here eat is pretty much, oh, European, just adjusted a bit, in fine melting pot-stylee. (Fondue, any one?) And note which cuisines she doesn't cook.

Now I'm really hungry. Hope this damn card works. TJ's, here I come.

Nasty Oil Companies & Their Highly Desirable Product

I'm such a liberal arts type that I've never come near an economics course, let alone statistics (my hair hurts just contemplating either one) but I'm equipped w/ as much common sense as the next person, or the next two people if one of them happens to be the self-described "world's tallest female econoblogger." And from her Atlantic blog today:

I bet that will teach those nasty oil companies that there are penalties for producing a highly desireable [sic] product!
Is it any wonder that I'm not affiliated with either party?

It seems to me that we have to deal w/ a basic assumption here. Is oil a "highly desirable product?" It's an unfortunately necessary product, especially in these United States, given the hideous distances many of us must drive (& the fact that few alternatives to burning gasoline are available) to assure ourselves the ability to purchase products & services we really desire. But desirable?

First & foremost, the stuff is burned to generate energy. The burning produces unburned particles that pollute our atmosphere, & our fragile little lungs, and causes asthma, lung cancer, respiratory problems & the like. The unburnt particles do make more colorful sunsets, but you can imagine anyone suffering from eye, nose, throat or lung problems would settle for duller sunsets & less suffering/more oxygen reaching their lungs. It seems to me, anyway.

Secondly, although the United States itself doesn't get a large portion of its oil from the Middle East, we & especially our European & Japanese friends & allies get enough of it from there that we are deeply involved in the politics & security of the region. And the insecurity of the region, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 (he dared to threaten to nationalize Iran's oil, and toss the British & American oil cos. out) to current adventures in imperialism you may see on the news.

Or you may have seen something on the news just a couple of days ago, concerning an event of six years ago that had a lot to do w/ that "highly desirable product."

Many libertarians of an extreme stripe believe that the only legitimate function of gov't. is defense against foreign enemies. Think of the "peace dividend" we would have had (that might mean lower taxes, libs) if we hadn't been addicted to "desirable" oil, & had been able to reduce our military posture following the break-up of the Soviet Union, rather than having to keep the Persian Gulf safe for oil profits & ungrateful Europeans. And think of the military/industrial/national security complex that Big Oil & its desirable product have lead us into.

As to the specifics of Ms. McArdle's item, her commentators have a good back & forth going; take from it what you will. I'm dealing w/ the larger aspects here. And my hair is already beginning to feel a little queasy.

Line Count:

Megan McA.: 9

What she quoted: 17

Video Bonus: What we might do w/ windfall profits. And the answer from the glibertarians.