Headline on CNN Money: Oil prices: back up a week after SPR [Strategic Petroleum Reserve] release.
On Thursday, West Texas Intermediate crude edged lower to $94.27 a barrel. But that’s still nearly $5 higher than last week, when prices fell over 4% following the oil release announcement.
As the article notes, the weakening value of the dollar is causing an increase in gas prices: it takes more American dollars to buy the same amount of oil, since those dollars are worth less. Given that the Federal government has monetised over a trillion dollars since Obama took office, it should come as no surprise that the American dollar is weak. Furthermore, the United States needs a strategic petroleum reserve, so investors and speculators believe that the government will simply re-purchase the oil that it is putting out onto the market right now – therefore negating the increased supply.
The bigger issue is the anti-energy Obama Administration polices. Obama’s moratorium on deepwater drilling resulted in a loss of 360,000 barrels of oil per day, according to the Institute for Energy Research; once the moratorium was partially lifted, it resulted in a loss of 150,000 barrels per day. Pro-energy groups have been encouraging development of AWNR since the 1970s and 1980s. Had we developed that area in the 1980s, it would have been producing oil for the last fifteen or twenty years. Alaskans support development of ANWR by a margin of almost four-to-one. At a minimum, ANWR contains twenty times the petroleum as was released from the SPR.
Ultimately, the blocked production far eclipses anything that could be released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is why the price of oil will not go down and why we will continue to be dependent upon foreign nations for our oil Further, the SPR is functionally borrowed oil – oil borrowed from future consumers.
When you spend more time flooding the market with currency that is not backed by value than by increasing oil production, the price of oil will go up. No surprise to anyone except for the people who thought that the SPR would create a magical reduction in gas prices.
Update (Hat tip: Da TechGuy himself!): Drill, baby, drill! Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, aka Sarah Palin’s successor of “pass the basketball” fame, announced that Alaska will open up state-owned land for drilling. The state owns three miles of ocean along the Arctic Coast, near ANWR, which could allow access to the oil deposits in the field. The procreating caribou were too busy emulating rabbits to be reached for comment.
To be serious: Alaska has long used its Tenth-Amendment given powers to produce energy. Energy production in the lower 48 is regulated by the federal government (through FERC); the rationale is that since electricity passes through state lines, it’s an element of interstate commerce. That rationale doesn’t apply to Alaska and Hawaii; free from onerous federal oversight, Alaska has become one of the nation’s leaders in traditional and renewable energy.
Stephen Colbert decided in his running gag about forming his own PAC to highlight both Turn Right USA and their initial Janice Hahn video. (Note I am breaking my own rule concerning this ad because it is only a brief clip within the Colbert Report.)
His own priorities not withstanding thanks to Colbert, the play count for the ad and the hit count for Turn Right USA should soar. I’m sure the Hahn campaign will love the attention. In fact let’s take a look at what happens when you search for “Janice Hahn” on Youtube as of 7 a.m. this morning EST:
Count the hits, that adds up to 700,000+ including the MSNBC report which played the entire ad. That’s sure to keep people unacquainted with the charges in the ad.
And it gets worse for Hahn. If you look at the top 10 results only two of them are not directly speaking to the ad and one of those is the initial news report that the ad is based on.
Now I object to the ad because I consider it (and still do) sexist and I don’t care for the language, but idea that Stephen “I’m whiter than wonder bread” Colbert is accusing two black rappers of racism against blacks is rather interesting.
At least one of the rappers in question Uncle Head, objected on twitter.
Splack Pack btw is the name of the Rap group in the video.
So the end result of all of this is:
A whole new set of people not acquainted with the ad or the charges have been introduced to it.
The primary association for Janice Hahn on YouTube is this video.
Turn Right USA has been granted instant national credibility by one of the left’s attack organs and will likely result in an influx of contributions
And of course I’m sure the both the Hahn campaign and Turn Right USA are absolutely thrilled that Colbert has done this the day after Turn Right USA released this follow-up video:
With a 75%-25% advantage D vs R in the primary, the odds of Hahn losing her special election in CA-36 are long, but she is damaged and democrats have been forced to use resources, including money and national airtime to counter that damage. What do you think will happen if Ladd Ehlinger and/or Turn right USA is turned loose on a closer campaign?
Update: Colbert was granted his PAC by the government today on two votes 6-0 & 5-1. Turn Right USA couldn’t buy this kind of publicity.
…and they were right:
with apologies to Glenn Reynolds who invented the meme
Update: Added the link to the entire “if I voted for John McCain” collection
Update 2: Take a look at the video and make note of this. He didn’t say it off the air and didn’t mean to say it off the air. He meant to say it on the air and be seen saying it! That speaks volumes
Update 3: They told me if I used the “If I voted for John McCain” meme concerning this Morning Joe business I would be able to snarf an instalanche and they were right!
Update 4: They told me if I voted for John McCain reporters who dared insult the president would be suspended and they were right
“Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst,” said the network in a statement.
Ed Morrissey comments before the news of the suspension news came out
the fuss seems a little overblown. “Dick” isn’t a word that needs to be censored; for one thing, it’s a proper name used by a number of politicians, including Dick Durbin, who’s second in Democratic leadership in the Senate. It’s also a playground word for “jerk” or “penis,” but hardly an obscenity. Either way, the producer shouldn’t be blamed for missing the delay button.
Halperin should be apologizing for a lack of imagination. He’s right in that the President acted like a pouting, sullen adolescent during the press conference
Hey insulting the president on MSNBC is VERBOTEN even if almost nobody watches it.
Update 5: Just saw the Halperin suspension reported on CNN (11:54 a.m. EST), they said it was a “word beginning with D”. Can somebody tell me how many people at CNN or MSNBC were suspended for calling Tea Party members “Teabaggers”?
Update 6: Stacy McCain notices that the left has decided it’s proof of conservative media bias:
Benen expects Democrats to employ class-warfare rhetoric, and expects liberal journalists to praise Democrats who do so. And while Halperin is a liberal in good standing, his accurate assessment of Obama’s press-conference performance — which was off-putting, in that the president seemed peevish and petulant — permits the Left to renew their bizarre claim that the media has a right-wing bias.
Of course why didn’t we think of that before!
Update 7: How crazy is this punishment? So crazy that even Greg Sargent gets it
Of course what Halperin said is inappropriate. Of course it’s inevitable that MSNBC had to mete out some kind of punishment. But it could have been a three-day suspension or on-air rebuke or something. To be clear, I don’t really care about Halperin’s fate. The point is that an indefinite suspension obscures the fact that crass and dumb and “uncivil” statements aren’t the real problem here.
Most of his piece if nonsense but he is right that the punishment of Halperin is excessive.
So says the Huffpo:
The passage of historic legislation legalizing same sex marriage in the state of New York last Friday was owed in large part to a compelling political motivator: money.
Although New York’s legislators were already disposed to approving gay marriage because of the more progressive disposition of the state and a major grassroots campaign in support of the bill, LGBT activists from both parties turned to a simple, poignant argument: Lawmakers not only stood to gain the support of well-funded gay-rights supporters if they backed the bill, they would suffer if they opposed it or shied away from the spotlight.
As a catholic I remember Matthew 6:24 on not being able to serve God and Money but for those on the left who don’t like that example let me tweak an old David Frye Joke:
I’m a liberal and I believe the use of money to influence our elected officials by activists groups is wrong, but in this case I’m willing to make an exception.
Personally I think the “Downfall” collection has been done to death but I love the reminder of that it was National Socialism not National Capitalism
We can expect to see the condemnations from the Hahn campaign any minute I’m sure
According to the Alaska Daily News, Alaskans are more likely to vote for Barack Obama than for Sarah Palin. As Allahpundit explains, the polling company does not have the most reputable record for polling accuracy:
The poll, incidentally, was conducted by Hays Research, whose final poll of the 2008 presidential campaign put John McCain just three points ahead of Obama in Alaska notwithstanding Palin’s presence on the ticket. The actual result on election day: McCain 59, Obama 38.
How do polls get to be so wrong? According to the polling company, 500 likely voters (who voted in at least two of the last four elections) were surveyed and were called several times to ensure that the results were not skewed by absence from home. Hays Research explicitly accounts for the “working telephone number” part of this, which may matter more in Alaska than in, say, Massachusetts or New York City. Hays then claimed that the numbers are within a 4.4% confidence interval.
The only issue I see here is this:
The survey sample used was a computer generated random list derived from a database of all households within the State of Alaska with working telephone numbers who have at least one member who has voted in at least two of the last four local or state elections. The sample frame was designed to accurately reflect the actual population percentages.
Define. Does that mean that if 65% of Alaskans are conservative and 35% are liberal, that 65% of those surveyed were conservatives? Or is there some sneaky “actual population percentages… of Berkeley, California” in there? What about accounting for households versus individual voters? If you call during the day, you often get women or young people, who tend to be liberal. So if a Republican husband is married to a Democrat wife, and they always end up talking to the wife, well, yeah, your surveys are going to come out badly. Now, maybe talking to “households” is fine, but, the way I was trained in canvassing, you talk to voters.
This email landed in my inbox just now:
We’re closing the books on the first fundraising quarter of the 2012 race at midnight tomorrow.
A lot of folks will be interpreting our numbers as a measure of this campaign’s support.
They’re not wrong, but they are wrong about why.
We measure our success not in dollars but in people — in the number of everyday Americans who’ve chosen to give whatever they can afford because they know we’ve got more work to do.
I’m asking you to be one of them. Please donate $5 or more before midnight tonight (….)
Translation: Our numbers really suck this year, but we’re going to spin it and pretend that we still have support. Because let’s be real: the guy who lead the first-ever billion dollar campaign doesn’t measure support in anything besides gigantic piles of cold, hard cash.
Four-dollar a gallon gasoline? The extra $50 a week that households spend on that isn’t going into his coffers. Onerous regulations that hurt small businesses? Comments about pitchforks? Sorry, Obama, but people don’t want to give you their hard-earned money anymore.
If you click the “Share this” button does an internet cop pop out and yell “Gotcha!”?
I remember this line from an old justice League comic with a hero from the future called Booster Gold (pretty lame character actually) who while fighting a group of villains encounters a shapely enemy that strikes a pose asking: “You wouldn’t hit a girl would you?” he answers “Well…” you see a panel with the giant word BAM! and then the line about equality above.
There follows a tirade about what we teach our sons about violence against women, as if, in a face to face physical encounter, the man is always wrong. So, as a woman in the work place, can I get right up in any man’s face, get as angry as I want, shake my fist right by his big old glasses, and the moment he flinches, if his hand touches me, I get to shout “violence against women” and he’s the one who’s screwed? As a feminist, I would just love to have power like that. That’s sarcasm, I hope you’re not too far gone to realize.
Althouse asks the question: How is it that our friends on the left, champions of they type of feminism that felt insulted if you held a door with your fedora off, can believe in this?
At the Conservatory part of the answer comes from Joy McCann:
But of course, this isn’t all a gender-relations issue, because if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin had charged someone with their fists raised, there would not be this notion that the blows must be blocked without making contact with the woman’s neck at all. (And the idea that one can defend oneself against strikes without touching the assailant’s neck is honestly bizarre anyway.)
Some of this, in short, has less to do with the male-female double standard than it has to do with the liberal-conservative double standard.
She gets another piece of the puzzle there, their belief is dependent on the target because as the Reclusive leftist has pointed out the left’s support of what they call “feminism” can be very selective.
So we’ve established the what (the left playing the defenseless woman game) the how (twisting it only for these particular women on the left) but it’s Ed Morrissey who finishes the trifecta by establishing the WHY
Bradley and Abrahamson didn’t think they could win in a criminal complaint or a demand for a restraining order (which would make Supreme Court sessions rather difficult), and so chose to leak the story to political allies in order to pay back Prosser
Why didn’t they think they could win? The answer is back on paragraph in the post.
Prosser would have his due-process rights, including taking depositions, evidentiary hearings, and the like.
When you accuse someone of a crime you have to back it up with something called evidence so Bradley and Abrahamson decided to play the old game, let the left and the blogs play attack dogs, but with a thin amount of actual facts to back them up they are playing the only game they think they can win, counting on the old protective instinct to support them.
I think they are going to be burned badly.