A recent declaration by Sarah Palin that she doesn’t intend to shut up is the best news the Democrats have gotten in months. In her public life to date, everything that has come out of her mouth that hasn’t been uninformed in content and inarticulate in execution has been hopelessly bland and non-specific -- completely lacking in any indication that she has any but the vaguest understanding of basic principles of governance, conservative or otherwise. And there’s no reason not to expect that to continue.
Soon after the election, it seemed that the Palin phenomenon had ended -- that she had disappeared from the national stage for good, and, as conservative pundits and politicians had their inevitable what-was-I-thinking moment, the idea of her taking on the leadership role in the Republican party had receded further and further into the gloaming.
But no. She reappeared with a book, then a television show, and has managed to stay alternately on the fringes or in the forefront of public consciousness throughout. People who seem otherwise reasonably sensible are again saying things about her – things which, if they say them, they presumably believe them -- that are totally at odds with the evidence – the evidence she herself has supplied with her every public utterance.
An article by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal asks “what's behind the left's deranged hatred” of Palin. The answer is, it’s not deranged and it’s not hatred -- and it’s not just the left. It’s a simple recognition of that fact that she is the lightest of intellectual lightweights – an unschooled talking-point repeater totally lacking in statecraft skills and with no real understanding of “the American people” she repeatedly and thoughtlessly invokes. Granted, she has this in common with many politicians, maybe most, but still… this is the person that seemingly sane party strategists see as their leader?
The more relevant question, then, isn’t what's behind the left's deranged hatred of Palin, but what’s behind the right’s deranged infatuation with her. What has she said or done, or thought or written, that demonstrates to this constituency that she belongs at the top of government? Nothing about her stands up to detached analysis, leading to the conclusion that their support is, at bottom, emotional – schoolboy/schoolgirl crushes formed during the time of her initial public emergence that they haven’t gotten over yet. In any case, they continue to say things about her that are demonstrably not true. One pundit, for example, referred to Palin’s “obvious smarts” – a real head-scratcher, because if she has any smarts, to date, they’ve been anything but obvious.
The flip side of the conservative punditry’s inexplicable enthusiasm for Gov. Palin is the indignation with which they’ve reacted to the less-than-enthusiastic reception her initial selection received in many quarters, and their righteous anger at what they consider to have been unfair treatment in the press. Well, one pales at the thought of the lacerations these same people would be inflicting on Gov. Palin if she were a Democrat and been offered up by that party as its VP candidate. This person is a lightweight, not national-candidate timbre, is what Republicans would be saying – and much, much more – if Palin were on the other team. Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and all the rest would have set new records for sneering.
To risk stating the obvious, Sen. McCain didn't pick Gov. Palin because he thought she would make a good vice president or a good president. He picked her because he thought it would help him win the election, and he didn't hesitate to put her the proverbial heartbeat away. Ironically, the calculation, cold as it was, that Palin’s selection would drive votes to the Republican ticket was remarkably clueless, and demonstrated the bizarre understanding McCain and his team seemed to have about actual voters out here in flyover territory. At the very least, the idea that this would bring women voters over to their side speaks loudly and clearly about their low opinion of women voters.
In the days and weeks after the election, Sen. McCain diplomatically declined to publicly implicate Palin in the failure of his ticket. But he has to know that her selection was a ghastly mistake that came perilously close to making a laughing stock of his campaign. As for Gov. Palin’s political future: The likelihood is that her refusal to “shut up” will lead, sooner or later, to her exit from the national political stage and a retreat to the television reality show hosting career that her cynical thrust at high office may have been aimed at all along.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Gas Price Horror Strikes Again
A car that cost $30,000 in 2010 would have cost about $12,000 back in 1981. I learned this from a Web site called The Inflation Calculator, which I highly recommend to anyone obsessing (again) over the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
It’s baffling. A loaf of bread that goes for $1.29 now was only 55-cents in 1981, yet I haven’t seen any headlines lamenting the record price of that commodity, nor have I heard any calls for the government to step in and do something about the rapacious tactics of Big Bread, or to saddle it with a “windfall profits” tax, as was being proposed during the last gas-price obsession and doubtless will be again -- a tax which would, of course, have the effect of raiding the college or retirement savings of millions of ordinary Americans who have invested in oil stocks, without reducing the price of gas by a penny.
With some exceptions – electronic gizmos, for example – everything costs more than it did in 1981, and the rate of increase for gasoline hasn’t been, generally speaking, any higher or faster than it has been for anything else. And I pick 1981 because that year, gasoline was the most expensive, until very recently, it has ever been: $1.36 a gallon, which would be $3.21 today. Even with the latest price spike that threatens to send media outlets into another gas-price frenzy, the outlay for gas as a percentage of disposable income, the only measurement that really matters, is roughly the same, now vs. then. By contrast, the costs of health care and a college education, as just two examples, have long since left normal inflation rates in their rear-view mirror, and the percentage of disposal income they soak up is something approximating disastrous.
Yet, the outrage is directed at oil companies, spawning, among other things, congressional hearings that put oil execs in the dock so preening politicians can take potshots at them, television news stories in which we see angry consumers expressing shock and horror at the outrages being done to them, and silly Internet schemes involving one-day gasoline boycotts. Go figure. And the interesting thing about gasoline, as opposed to, say, bread, is that the price of gasoline may well be considerably lower by next week, next month, or next year than it is today, because the price of gasoline does that – fluctuates. And so, it will again be cheaper than it was more than a quarter of a century ago.
It’s hard to say what makes Big Oil such a lightning rod. Maybe it’s the popular perception of the industry as being under the control of some Master Manipulator who moves the price of gas up and down according to whim, as distinguished from the reality, which is that gas prices are buffeted about by a complex set of market-driven circumstances mainly involving perceptions of current and future availability. Moreover, the oil industry operates on profit margins that are not particularly high – lower by quite a bit than, for example, the pharmaceutical and financial services industries. But because Big Oil sells a heckuva lot of gasoline, those relatively small profit margin dollars add up to a big number.
Do higher gasoline prices weigh most heavily on the poor? Well, yes, of course. Everything weighs most heavily on the poor. But gasoline, as distinguished from any number of other necessary commodities, has remained pretty consistent for the past several decades in the amount of pain it inflicts on the budgets of poor people, and on everybody else, for that matter. In other words, gasoline prices at their current level are no harder on anybody than they were twenty-five years ago.
None of that stops ambitious politicians – is there any other kind? – from firing up the g-word – gouging -- whenever they think they can get some mileage out of it and then demanding that all those greedy 401K owners be brought to heel by confiscating the “windfall profits” they’re setting aside to educate their children.
It’s baffling. A loaf of bread that goes for $1.29 now was only 55-cents in 1981, yet I haven’t seen any headlines lamenting the record price of that commodity, nor have I heard any calls for the government to step in and do something about the rapacious tactics of Big Bread, or to saddle it with a “windfall profits” tax, as was being proposed during the last gas-price obsession and doubtless will be again -- a tax which would, of course, have the effect of raiding the college or retirement savings of millions of ordinary Americans who have invested in oil stocks, without reducing the price of gas by a penny.
With some exceptions – electronic gizmos, for example – everything costs more than it did in 1981, and the rate of increase for gasoline hasn’t been, generally speaking, any higher or faster than it has been for anything else. And I pick 1981 because that year, gasoline was the most expensive, until very recently, it has ever been: $1.36 a gallon, which would be $3.21 today. Even with the latest price spike that threatens to send media outlets into another gas-price frenzy, the outlay for gas as a percentage of disposable income, the only measurement that really matters, is roughly the same, now vs. then. By contrast, the costs of health care and a college education, as just two examples, have long since left normal inflation rates in their rear-view mirror, and the percentage of disposal income they soak up is something approximating disastrous.
Yet, the outrage is directed at oil companies, spawning, among other things, congressional hearings that put oil execs in the dock so preening politicians can take potshots at them, television news stories in which we see angry consumers expressing shock and horror at the outrages being done to them, and silly Internet schemes involving one-day gasoline boycotts. Go figure. And the interesting thing about gasoline, as opposed to, say, bread, is that the price of gasoline may well be considerably lower by next week, next month, or next year than it is today, because the price of gasoline does that – fluctuates. And so, it will again be cheaper than it was more than a quarter of a century ago.
It’s hard to say what makes Big Oil such a lightning rod. Maybe it’s the popular perception of the industry as being under the control of some Master Manipulator who moves the price of gas up and down according to whim, as distinguished from the reality, which is that gas prices are buffeted about by a complex set of market-driven circumstances mainly involving perceptions of current and future availability. Moreover, the oil industry operates on profit margins that are not particularly high – lower by quite a bit than, for example, the pharmaceutical and financial services industries. But because Big Oil sells a heckuva lot of gasoline, those relatively small profit margin dollars add up to a big number.
Do higher gasoline prices weigh most heavily on the poor? Well, yes, of course. Everything weighs most heavily on the poor. But gasoline, as distinguished from any number of other necessary commodities, has remained pretty consistent for the past several decades in the amount of pain it inflicts on the budgets of poor people, and on everybody else, for that matter. In other words, gasoline prices at their current level are no harder on anybody than they were twenty-five years ago.
None of that stops ambitious politicians – is there any other kind? – from firing up the g-word – gouging -- whenever they think they can get some mileage out of it and then demanding that all those greedy 401K owners be brought to heel by confiscating the “windfall profits” they’re setting aside to educate their children.
College Football Rankings: Schedule Isn't an Important Thing -- It's the Only Thing
Out here in St. Louis we have an institution called Washington University, a school with about 13,000 students that's big on academics -- it's sometimes called the Harvard of the Midwest and it runs a world-class teaching hospital -- but when it comes to athletics, well, not so much. It does participate in inter-collegiate sports, though, and has a football team, the Bears. The Bears' 2010 NCAA Division III schedule: Knox College, Rhodes College, Wittenburg University, Westminster College, Wabash College, College of Wooster, Oberlin College Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve University, and the University of Chicago.
That schedule is typical of, if not identical to, Washington U. schedules over the years, and it has produced won-lost records that have been generally fair to middling. I don't know that the Bears have ever gone undefeated, but if they were to do so, I believe it's safe to say that no one would deem them, as a result of that unblemished record, the best football team in the United States. Or the 10th best. Or the 100th best.
That's important because it serves to illustrate the single most important component of college football rankings: schedule. Who you play isn't just a part of it. It's all of it. If that were not the case, then
the Washington University Bears, having gone undefeated -- and, perhaps having beaten all of their opponents 55-0 -- would be number one, or contenders for it.
Let us turn now to Boise State University, an institution with about 19,000 students and also a participant in NCAA sports -- a relatively small school in a very small (population-wise) state, and a school whose football program has been characterized by some as being far stronger than it's given credit for and, thus, chronically dealt with unjustly in the rankings The 2010 schedule of the football team, the Broncos, was as follows: Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, New Mexico State, Toledo, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno State, Nevada, and Utah State.
Granted, those opponents are a step or two up from Wabash College and Carnegie Mellon University, but for the same reason that Washington U. beating everyone on its schedule doesn't make it the best team in the country, Boise State beating all the teams on its schedule doesn't indicate that the Broncos are the best football team in the country either. Or the 10th best. Or the 25th best. It's possible that they are the best, but we can't know as long as their schedule consists mainly of the Louisiana Techs and Idahos of the world.
Missouri, a team we're fond of here and one that has gained some national prominence lately, would have, it can reasonably be argued, run roughshod over that schedule. In fact, it pretty much ran roughshod over its actual schedule, which does not include Wyoming or Toledo but which does include Illinois, Texas A&M, San Diego State, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. The worst of those are arguably as good as anyone on the Broncos' schedule except Virginia Tech.
Net: There will probably be a good many teams, among the thousands of college football teams, that will be undefeated this year, including Boise State. But hardly any of them will be contenders for a national
championship.
That schedule is typical of, if not identical to, Washington U. schedules over the years, and it has produced won-lost records that have been generally fair to middling. I don't know that the Bears have ever gone undefeated, but if they were to do so, I believe it's safe to say that no one would deem them, as a result of that unblemished record, the best football team in the United States. Or the 10th best. Or the 100th best.
That's important because it serves to illustrate the single most important component of college football rankings: schedule. Who you play isn't just a part of it. It's all of it. If that were not the case, then
the Washington University Bears, having gone undefeated -- and, perhaps having beaten all of their opponents 55-0 -- would be number one, or contenders for it.
Let us turn now to Boise State University, an institution with about 19,000 students and also a participant in NCAA sports -- a relatively small school in a very small (population-wise) state, and a school whose football program has been characterized by some as being far stronger than it's given credit for and, thus, chronically dealt with unjustly in the rankings The 2010 schedule of the football team, the Broncos, was as follows: Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, New Mexico State, Toledo, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno State, Nevada, and Utah State.
Granted, those opponents are a step or two up from Wabash College and Carnegie Mellon University, but for the same reason that Washington U. beating everyone on its schedule doesn't make it the best team in the country, Boise State beating all the teams on its schedule doesn't indicate that the Broncos are the best football team in the country either. Or the 10th best. Or the 25th best. It's possible that they are the best, but we can't know as long as their schedule consists mainly of the Louisiana Techs and Idahos of the world.
Missouri, a team we're fond of here and one that has gained some national prominence lately, would have, it can reasonably be argued, run roughshod over that schedule. In fact, it pretty much ran roughshod over its actual schedule, which does not include Wyoming or Toledo but which does include Illinois, Texas A&M, San Diego State, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. The worst of those are arguably as good as anyone on the Broncos' schedule except Virginia Tech.
Net: There will probably be a good many teams, among the thousands of college football teams, that will be undefeated this year, including Boise State. But hardly any of them will be contenders for a national
championship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)