There are two conflicting views of reality fluttering through the Democratic Congress and both involve the effects of speculation.  On the one hand, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are absolutely convinced that speculators are driving up the price of oil.  On the other, Chuck Schumer is equally convinced that his open and public speculation about the financial health of a bank had no effect on its immediate collapse and takeover by the FDIC.  The terrible truth is that, like Democrats on most issues, they are both provably wrong.

When a market participant decides to buy (or sell) a futures contract on oil, they are betting that the future price will rise (or fall).  These “evil, manipulative speculators” are people who use oil or gas and need to manage their risk.  For example, if you run an airline, a large portion of your cost is the cost of fuel.  Unfortunately, there is no market for managing the risk of refined Jet-A fuel, so you have to rely on the proxy of crude oil.  For example, let’s say the price of oil on July 1, 2008 was $140 per barrel.  You believe the price will go up in a year, so you buy several contracts that will, theoretically let you buy oil in a year at today’s price.  If, on July 1, 2009, the price of oil is $200 per barrel, you have a piece of paper that allows you to buy a barrel for $140 and the other party makes up the difference.  If, on the other hand, the price goes down to $100 per barrel, you have to pay $140 (in reality, you pay $40 to the counterparty and no oil changes hands).

So, if your company uses a lot of oil, and you’re worried the price will go up, you would buy a lot of these contracts.  If the price does, indeed go up, you have the “profits” from the future contracts to offset the increased cost.  In other words, you enter into 10,000 of those contracts, your cost of jet-A goes up by $400,000, you can offset that cost by the $400,000 you receive from the futures contract.  As you (hopefully) can tell from my description, no where in the futures market is the price of oil manipulated.  People are speculating (that’s a Harvard word for guessing) about whether the price will go up or down, but no oil changes hands.

This is very similar to betting.  I can assure you from personal experience that betting on a team to win will in no way effect their chances of winning.  If Harry Reid were right about this, the favorite would win every sporting contest.  (And his home state of Nevada would lose a ton of legal and illegal revenue).  There is no economist that I’m aware of who has ever said that speculating has an impact on price.  Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, when the federal government banned commodity trading on onions the result was a disaster.  When market participants could not manage their risk, prices became more volatile, not less.  Learning from history, it seems, is not a part of the Democratic agenda.

Separately, Chuck Schumer (D-umbass) and senior senator from New York, decided he wanted to collapse a bank, apparently to prove he could do it, or more cynically, to advance the leftist anticorporate agenda.  His public letter questioning the solvency of Indymac led to two weeks of frantic withdrawals by depositors.  After the federal government needed to step in on Saturday and take over the bank, Schumer, surprising no one, tried to blame Bush.  after causing the bank collapse, Schumer charged that president Bush had “blamed the fire on the guy who called 911.”

This is how stupid or dishonest Chuck Schumer is.  Either he is so dumb that he doesn’t realize that openly questioning the solvency of a bank would cause its depositors to withdraw their money, or he is so dishonest, he believes that you are so stupid that he can get away with it.  When a sitting U.S. senator (frequently referred to as a failed lawyer) on the senate banking committee openly questions the solvency of a major bank, there are consequences.  People who either (1) still have faith in their goverment or (2) realize who monumentally stupid such a thing is to do; will rush to their bank and take out their money.  As Mr. Schumer appears immune to any real facts, he might want to re-watch “It’s a Wonderful Life,” as this was a major plot point.

Mr. Reid is the kind of idiot who thinks gamblers have an impact on the game.  Mr. Schumer is the kind of idiot who, when hiding with the Franks in the attic, sees nothing wrong with shouting “DO YOU THINK THE NAZIS CAN HEAR US?!?” in the middle of a ghestapho raid.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a patently unconstitutional ban on hand guns in Washington, D.C. In light of the Court’s recent stupidity involving child rape and habeas corpus for terrorists, this is a refreshing departure from idiocy.

It does, however, raise an interesting point: if you’re an 8-year old child in danger of being raped by your stepfather or killed by terrorists, your only hope is to arm yourself.

This election season, pundits will argue over recent polling data, “bumps”, key demographics, “Reagan Democrats” and “Hillary Republicans.” People will claim that the economy or the war on terror or gasoline prices are the “most important issue in this campaign.”

In the end, though, the next leader of the free world will (we hope) be picked by voters in secluded booths in their local school auditoriums, church rooms and the odd apartment basement or VFW/KOC meeting hall. And that is why John McCain will win.

John McCain is, by any objective measure a war hero. When a missile was accidentally fired into a neighboring aircraft on the U.S.S. Forestall, he didn’t bail out and run for cover. He fled the relative safety of his cockpit and rescued a fellow pilot in danger, put himself in harms way and subjected himself to serious injury. Faced with a free-ride home, he transferred to the carrier that relieved the damaged Forrestal, the U.S.S. Oriskany. That fateful and selfless decision lead to his being shot down over Vietnam three months later. Even the manner in which he was shot down is telling of his character: his plane was seriously damaged and he nonetheless completed his mission before bailing out over the target he had just bombed. Needless to say, his captors did not welcome him openly.

John McCain spent six years in brutal captivity. His commanding officer and fellow POW in the Hanoi Hilton asked him to serve as chaplain, and he did, reciting scripture from memory. When his captors offered him freedom so that they could claim a propaganda victory, he refused. At a time when America was fighting an unpopular war, John McCain could have been home in months. He followed the code he believed in, and endured years of torture. He never broke.

When Americans go into the voting booths this November, they will choose between a charismatic, young politician and a cranky old war hero. Their heads will, no doubt, be spinning as they consider universal health care, global warming, Iraq, Iran and the seventh anniversary of September 11. No doubt, Jeremiah Wright’s new book and race relations will be in their minds as well. But when they go to pull that lever, I am willing to bet that, when faced with a choice between a man who, even under torture, would not turn his back on his principles and Barack Obama, Americans will pick John McCain.

With apologies to Adam Sandler (and for outing anyone)

Conservatism is
The defense of states’ rights,
Instead of one massive federal program,
We want our tax bill to be light!

When you feel like the only kid in town
Who’s in the G-O-P;
Here’s a list of celebrity Neocons,
Just like you and me…

Frasier’s Kelsey Grammar
Is a red-state voter,
So is Paul Sorvino, Pat Sajak
and rich kid Ricky Schroeder.

Guess who supports Bush’s tax cuts
And thinks Code Pink is scary?
Catherine Bell from JAG
And San Francisco’s Dirty Harry!

Tom Selleck is a Conservative,
Heather Locklear is one too,
Put them both together,
And there’s nothing we can’t do!

You don’t need to pay high taxes,
Or turn over your beloved Glock.
You can lobby Congress with
Regis Philbin and The Rock!

[Chorus]
Pull out the superlatives,
Here come the Conservatives
Fiscal plans that’re preserve-ative
When you’re a Conservative!

Hanoi Jane Fonda [not a GOPper]
But guess who is? Easy Rider Dennis Hopper [He converted]

Guess who thinks the Democrats
Take advantage of taxpayers?
Don McLean, Meat Loaf, Bo Derek
And Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

So many Righties are in the show biz
Barbara Streisand isn’t
But I bet her accountant is.

[Chorus]
Pull out the superlatives,
Here come the Conservatives
Fiscal plans that’re preserve-ative
When you’re a Conservative!

As a former NASA fellow, I know that every NASA employee is required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. As an attorney, I know that the very first amendment to the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that freedom to preclude the courts and every government agency from imposing any prior restraints on speech. In fact, the high court has gone so far as to prohibit otherwise sensible restrictions on the grounds that they would “chill meritorious debate,” meaning that fear of running afoul of the rule might limit public debate over an important issue.

James Hansen doesn’t like debate. He knows that, if we have a fair and open discourse on Global Warming™, he will lose. That is why he is calling on Congress to prosecute oil executives. Yes, the “scientist” who, through thousands of media outlets, has had the unhinged gall to say the government is silencing him, wants that same government to silence the other side of the debate. I suppose if you can’t beat ‘em, prosecute ‘em.

With any luck the fat, bloated morons who “run” the government will ignore this patently illegal request. But nonetheless, NASA should finally fire him. He has clearly violated his oath, he is a distraction to the agency and is waging a propaganda war on tax payer money. He needs to be fired.

There’s a real hubbub brewing about a tape that allegedly shows Michelle Obama at the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ railing against “whitey”. The rumor, started by Hillary Clinton supporter Larry Johnson. It goes without saying, of course, that the Obama campaign and the mainstream media are unfairly blaming this rumor mongering on the “vast-Right Wing conspiracy” and the “Republican attack machine” that is the source of so much ill will in this country. (Like the time we made Slick Willy play hide the cigar with an intern).

I sincerely doubt this rumor is true. If it were, Hillary would have aired it long before now to save her chance at the nomination. As far as Mr. Johnson is concerned, if you want to check out his credibility and track record, you might want to start here, his NY Times article entitled “The Declining Terrorist Threat.” Note the date.

I’ve added several whoppers to the D’Oh-Bama gaffes and more page. He’s been busy. Apparently, he hasn’t had much sleep lately.

Well, you win some and you lose some. Apparently I overestimated Hillary Clinton’s capacity to endure ostracism and campaign debts. I was certain she would not bow out, and yet she did. I will say this, though: in her “concession speech” she referred to herself a total of 108 times. She referred to Barack Obama 19 times.

Is Hillary really really endorsing Barack Obama? It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Do you recall, back in the heady days of inevitability, Hillary deigned to allow the peasants to pick her campaign song? Perhaps her post-campaign theme should be the Beatles, “When I’m 64.” (Hillary Clinton will be 64 in 2012). To wit:

When I get older, I’m running again
Just four years from now
Will you still be voting for me then next time?
More campaigning with blue collar swine.

If the phone rings at quarter to three
Who should answer more?
Will you still need me
Will you elect me
When I’m sixty four?

I’ll be in Denver too
And if you say the word
I will stay in view

I could pretend, mending this feud
But when the results are in
You will hear me swearing that “I told you so”
On Sunday morning political shows

I’ll stay in the Senate,
Passing the years
I will wait four more
Will you still need me
Will you elect me
When I’m sixty four?

Over the summer, we’ll hear reportage
On his Reverend Wright, I won’t disappear

For him I will campaign
But under baited breath
I’ll root for John McCain

Send me a postcard drop me a line
Stating point of view
Indicate precisely what you mean to say
Yours sincerely wasting away

Give me an answer, fill in a form
Mine for evermore
Will you still need me
Will you elect me
When I’m sixty four

Many have rightfully criticized McCain’s June 3rd speech as stiff and awkward. In response, the McCain campaign has hired former Obama speech consultant Yuri Lee Sedthet. The results have been immediate and compelling:

• While visiting the destroyed Back To the Future set at Universal Studios in California, McCain asked “so does the time machine still work?“
• Speaking to a group of fellow veterans, McCain noted, “Many soldiers never came back, and I see some of those men here today.”
• When asked why he felt Californians would not vote for him over Senator Obama, McCain (R-Arizona) replied, “Sen. Obama, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Hawaii. So it’s not surprising that he would have an advantage in some of those states in the West.”
• Regarding the controversy over Reverend Wright, McCain said “The point I was making was not that Reverend Wright harbors any racial animosity. He doesn’t. But he is a typical black person who, uh, if he sees somebody in the government that he doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
• In a speech on foreign relations, McCain promised to “work with the President of England on trade issues in the European States.”
• Regarding his efforts to work with Democrats in office, McCain noted that “I’ve worked with members of the Democratic party in 57 states. I haven’t worked with anyone in Alaska or Rhode Island yet.”
• Speaking to a group of Pearl Harbor survivors, McCain, who was born in 1936, noted his connection with that day of infamy, “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened at Pearl Harbor. So Roberta and John S. McCain got together and John McCain Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Pearl Harbor. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Pearl Harbor.”

Sixty-four years ago today, nearly one and a half million British, American and Canadian free men risked their lives to rid a continent and the world from Nazi oppression. These were the boys of Point du Hac, Omaha, Juno, Sword, Gold and Utah. These were the boys who jumped, for the first time, from perfectly good airplanes into combat with the most feared military force in history.

These young men had lived through the Great Depression, emerging just in time to see the world being swallowed by two brutally evil forces, spreading across Europe and Asia. They strapped on their boots and marched bravely into the face of an overwhelming, undefeated enemy. Their journey would take them through Normandy, Holland, Bastogne and, eventually, the horrors of Buchenwald and Dachau.

Having defeated Nazism in Europe, they turned, without flinching, to aid their comrades in the Pacific, ridding the world of Japanese imperial aggression. Only when a group of scientists harnessed the power of the atom, were they relieved of duty and able to return home.

On the backs of these heroes, America, and eventually the world, prospered. They took a society that was only one generation from horse-drawn carriages and the Wright Brothers, and they landed a man on the moon. Their contributions to our freedom, our economy and our history will never be forgotten.