Political Rant of the Week

Sorry to be so hostile, but this has really been irking me to no end.  It's the last thing I'll say about gas prices, b/c I'm sick of it.  So here's my final say on the matter:

Maybe I would care what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if they weren’t the ones who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country ages ago.  So now they’re moaning about the calamities of the poor working class having to pay high gas prices?  It’s just too much -- do they think we’re stupid?  This is what they wanted - imposing punitive taxes on gasoline to force people to ride bikes and use public transportation has been one of the left’s main policy goals for years. 

When Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 1993, Clinton proposed an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas.  He was fully backed by Gore, who stated that the gas tax would stay in the energy bill no matter how much trouble it caused the entire package.  The important thing was to force Americans to stop their blasted car-driving, no matter what the price.  Of course that was in Gore’s early years in the public eye, before we knew he was actually clinically insane.  Following suit, Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an energy bill that would put an additional 25-cent/gallon tax on gasoline to stop global warming.

Fortunately, the Democrats’ proposed gas tax caused somewhat of a revolution, and they were only able to sneak through a 4.3 cent/gallon federal tax on gas, and soon lost majority status.  The list of democrats who favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy, remains a mile long even to this day.  John Kerry, for instance, favored a 50 cent/per gallon increase in the federal gas tax in 1994, and continues to stonewall any proposal of federal energy tax cuts.  A mere 2 months ago, Americans were told (by a New York Times poll, by the way, so it must be true  ) that they “might favor a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened US dependence on foreign oil.”  This was a poll that was among 2 dozen others that collectively concluded Americans think we’re losing the war in Iraq.  Nice. 

The Democrats' real objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is only 18.4 cents a gallon (although states like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes, and Tennessee charges an additional 21.4 cents).  The fact that "big oil companies" get almost 9 cents a gallon (a profit margin well below average profit margins for large companies by the way – Coke, for instance, makes 21.9 cents on the dollar) eats the Democrats up.  They think they should have all that money!  They pretend to be appalled by the high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices have always been a part of their agenda.

Not that the Republicans have been any better.  You’d think they would take this opportunity to unite in blaming the Democrat environmentalists, calling for wider oil exploration, more refineries, and the development of an alternative to fossil fuels, specifically nuclear.  Instead they are abandoning their principles, trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, pandering and demagoguing, dragging in big-oil execs and sicking the IRS on their books – like any of that is going to produce any more oil or alleviate any of the pressures on the market that caused these price rises.  So Congress’ approval rating is 22%.  And what are the Republicans going to get for this abandonment?  On top of their excessive spending, the Republicans’ adoption of the economic illiteracy of the Democrats is putting more pressure than ever on the base to stay home at midterms this fall.  Good plan, guys.  Thanks for selling us out. 

I'd love to see fill stations start putting the price of gas before and after federal and state taxes on their signage.  Maybe more people would realize who we need to start pressuring, and start calling the politicians out to the carpet. 

Currently Listening O By Damien Rice see related

You Are Rowlf the Dog

Mellow and serious, you enjoy time alone cultivating your talents. You're a cool dog, and you always present a relaxed vibe. A talented pianist, you can play almost anything - especially songs by Beethoven. "My bark is worse than my bite, and my piano playing beats 'em both."

http://www.blogthings.com/themuppetpersonalitytest/

Currently Listening The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe see related

Oscar Predictions

I am uniquely qualified to give Oscar predictions this year because I have not seen a single film nominated for best picture, and have seen only two nominated for the other major categories.  I will grant my rewards using the same criteria that Hollywood studio executives have now adopted to grant theirs:  political correctness (and, judging by this year’s nominees, the awards committee also prefers movies that are wildly unpopular at the box office). 

I shall first summarize the plots for the best picture nominees:

“Brokeback Mountain” – gay

“Capote” – death penalty with bonus gay lead

“Crash” – racism

“Good Night, and Good Luck” – McCarthyism

“Munich” – those rotten Jew athletes at Munich had it coming

Everyone keeps saying it’s going to be “Crash,” but I’m putting my money on “Brokeback Mountain.”  “Crash” was too popular with filmgoers, for one.  Also, I get the feeling Hollywood thinks it has done enough for black people, whereas you can never do enough for gay people.  Gays in the military, gays on the Texas Rangers, gays on the range…like that’s such a groundbreaking theme anyway.  Didn’t the Village People start that like 40 years ago?  And how gay was John Travolta in Urban Cowboy?  The Brokeback sequel, “The Magnificent, Fabulous Seven,” will likewise win next best picture, I predict.  Ang Lee will get best director for “Brokeback Mountain.” 

Best actor nominees:

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, “Capote”

Terrence Howard, “Hustle and Flow”

Heath Ledger, “Brokeback Mountain”

Joaquin Phoenix, “Walk the Line”

David Strathairn, “Good Night and Good Luck”

And the winner is…Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  They can’t give everything to Brokeback Mountain.  At least Truman Capote was gay (even if he wasn’t a cowboy).  I personally would have chosen the lion from Narnia, but he wasn’t even nominated. 

Best actress nominees:

Reese Witherspoon, “Walk the Line”

Keira Knightly, “Pride and Prejudice”

Charlize Theron, “North Country”

Felicity Huffman, “Transamerica”

Judi Dench, “Mrs. Henderson Presents”

Now, I have seen both “Walk the Line” and “Pride and Prejudice,” and Reese Witherspoon and Keira Knightly were both very good, but that’s irrelevant – this is the Oscars!  Felicity Huffman plays a pre-op transsexual in “Transamerica.”  Not exactly gay, but close enough!  I predict that Huffman wins. 

The best original screenplay will be “Good Night, and Good Luck,” Hollywood’s version of “The Greatest Generation,” another tribute to the old Stalinists.  George Clooney has been milking the awards committee by going around boasting that conservatives have called him a “traitor,” although I believe the precise term was “airhead”.

And, finally, the nominees for best foreign language films are:

“Don’t Tell” – Italy

"Joyeux Noel" – France

“Paradise Now” – Palestine

“Sophie Scholl” – Germany

“Tsotsi” – South Africa

And the Oscar committee will give the award to…. “Paradise Now.” Critics have raved about this heartwarming story of Palestinian suicide bombers.  It’s Air Syria’s featured in-flight movie of the month.  Now, ordinarily I’d put my money on the Holocaust movie, and any other year, “Sophie Scholl” would be the obvious pick.  But, unfortunately for them, their Holocaust movie came out the same year as a pro-terrorist movie.  So sorry guys, you lose. 

Some final predictions:

Once again, there will be no mention of the blacklisted Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was brutally murdered by an angry Muslim on the streets of Amsterdam a little over a year ago.  No mention of our brave brothers and sisters fighting terror overseas so we don't have to fight it here.  And I also predict this will be the lowest-rated Oscars ever. 

Currently Reading The Decameron By Giovanni Boccaccio see related

 I really think there’s just got to be more to this port thing than is being revealed to us.

In response to the political firestorm that has rightly erupted over the selling of the operations of our most important ports to Dubai Ports World, a firm state-owned by the United Arab Emirates, and the obstinate refusal to give the transaction any more explanation or review, Bush’s best defense has been, “those who are questioning it… need to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.” 

All of a sudden?  Ahem, how about ever since the vicious massacre of 3,000 innocents on 9/11 – attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates, by the way.   Secondly -- the way I see it, there are at least 3,000 reasons why – and most of those reasons were buried in a mountain of wreckage in lower Manhattan.  And on the subject of comparing the U.A.E. to Great Britain,  drawing on some even more current examples than 9/11, the U.A.E. Minister holds that the recent Danish cartoon caper was “a cultural extremism,” represents “a dreadful clash of civilizations,” and defended radical Muslims that protested by engaging in rioting around the globe.  Tony Blair does not utter a peep when photographs of the Virgin Mary covered in pornographic images and cow dung appear in much more globally well-known publications (i.e. the New York Times), and the people of his country don’t engage in murderous rampages when their faith is assaulted (ever so much more savagely than the Danish cartoons, I might add).  Furthermore, the U.A.E. does not even recognize Israel as a nation, yet it has formally recognized al-Qaeda.  Talk about sending mixed messages to our allies, Mr. Bush.  How about not insulting our intelligence by implying that there is no conceivable difference between an United Arab Emirates company and a Great British company. 

Wait, so I wonder if that's what this is all about, making up for those stupid cartoons?  We haven’t patronized these people enough already? -- nobody in the U.S. will reprint the cartoons, not wanting to insult the Muslim faith.  The New York Times justified not running the controversial comics on its editorials page, saying it usually refrained from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, “especially since the cartoons were so easy to describe in words.”  I noted that it was a mere two days later that they ran the revolting photograph of the desecrated Virgin Mary (also an image very easily described in words).  Well, it’s been open season on Christianity for a long time.  Anyway, the administration has already defended the Muslim rioting, wouldn’t it be enough now if they just invited some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception?  Oh wait….that’s right, I forgot, they already did that right after September 11^th.  Ok, now I get why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.