It’s what everyone will be wearing in St. Paul:

Check out this and our other designs at the Daily Danet Store

Wow, what an exciting day.  I have to admit, I am really impressed with McCain for picking Sarah Palin.  She’s a tough, young governor in an oil rich state with the gravitas on Change.  The thing that strikes me about her is, everything Barack Obama claims to be, she actually is.

• Obama claims to be post partisan.
  Palin has not only worked with Democrats, she’s appointed them to high-level posts in Alaska.
• Obama claims to be an ethics reformer.
  Palin chased out of office the Governor, the attorney general and head of the political party in Alaska.  And they were REPUBLICANS.
• Obama claims to be against earmarks and pork barrel spending.
  Palin killed the biggest icon of wasteful spending, REPUBLICAN Ted Stevens’s bridge to nowhere and made sure it went nowhere.
• Obama claims to be against Big Oil™
  Palin rooted out corruption in the most oil-centric state in the Union.
• Barack Obama claims to be a leader.
  Sarah Palin is a leader.

There are many great aspects of this pick.  Look for Democrats to claim (1) this is a cynical ploy to attract Hillary voters and (2) this removes the experience attack.

I agree that a Sam Palin might not have been McCain’s VP pick.  A typical white guy from Alaska, even with Palin’s stunning record of reform would probably have lost to Romney’s name recognition.  Sarah Palin is a dynamic, young conservative, and yes a woman.  But there is no way that someone with such a Pro Life history, personal and professional, will attract all Hillary voters.  The correct person for that job was Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.  She’s an established senator with a pro choice record.  If anything, Sarah Palin is a pick calculated to shore up the Conservative base.  And boy, has it.

On the second point, I disagree.  The experience argument works both ways.  Democrats are already falling into the trap (including the dumbfounded Obama campaign) of attacking Palin on experience.  If anything, picking Palin will add depth and range to the attack.

First she has 12 years of executive experience.  Yes, the majority of that is in a small town in Alaska.  But Obama has 10 years as a legislator, most of that in Illinois.  How many of your own state legislators can you name?  Can you name your town or local city’s mayor?  The thing that small towns have that legislatures don’t are numerous, but they certainly include public services like police and firefighters, budgets that have to be kept to, decisions that have to be made–and quickly.  Legislators (especially Senators) get to pontificate, pose and prevaricate.  Mayors need to make decisions and their results are unfiltered.

Second, remember the old saying, when you point a finger at someone, three more are pointed at you?  Anytime Democrats attack Palin’s experience, they’re only drawing attention to the huge gaping holes in Obama’s resume.  Next January, Sarah Palin may be a heartbeat away from becoming president.  The alternative is that Obama will be president.  Not even a heartbeat will separate him from office.

Third, the fallback for experience is judgment.  What, exactly, is there in Obama’s history to point to good judgment?  He has practically no legislative accomplishments.  He has never run a business or made a significant policy decision on his own (other than picking Joe Biden as VP, and time will tell on that).  In his personal life, you have William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright and Antonin Rezko.  What’s left?  In 2003 he “voted” against going to war with Iraq?  Really?  He was in the Illinois legislature!  The largest army that body controls is their security detail.  That’s like Obama saying he yelled at his TV during the Superbowl and told Tom Brady to “avoid the blitz more.”  It wasn’t his decision, it wasn’t binding on him or anyone else, nobody heard him, and, if they did, frankly, nobody gave a damn.  Even if you take Obama seriously on this point, that’s it?!? No other examples of good judgment in 47 years?

In contrast, there are 12 years of Sarah Palin’s policy decisions (small and large) that we can review.  She and her husband ran a successful commercial fishing business in Alaska.  (Have you seen “Deadliest Catch?”).  Unlike Barrack Obama, we can see her thought process, how she dealt with crises and what the results were.

Finally, unlike the Illinois legislature, the governor of Alaska does control a standing military.  For the last two years, Sarah Palin has been commander in chief of the Alaska national guard.  She has visited Iraq, almost as many times as Obama has.  (She visited Alaska’s troops there once, as far as I can tell).  The largest armed force Barack has ever commanded was that time Sasha and Melia had a water gun fight.

As Greg Palowitz points out, this leads to a fun game.  Take everything a Democrat says about Palin and switch “Obama” for “Palin” and “Democrats nominate” for “McCain pick”.  For example, Chuck Schumer (D-bag NY) said “while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling.“  This really means: “while Obama is a fine person, his lack of experience makes the thought of him assuming the presidency troubling.”  Have fun.

As for me, if I had a vote (and, unlike Obama on Iraq, I do), I would rather have Sarah Palin in the White House than Barack Obama.

Here now are my suggested slogans for the Obama - Biden Campaign:

1. “Obama - Biden: Nothing says Change™ like a 65-year old white guy with 35 years in Washington.”
2. “Obama - Biden: This is not the Hope and Change I once knew.”
3. “Obama - Biden: Together, we have Joe Biden’s experience.”
4. “Obama - Biden: No childish worldview left behind.”
5. “Obama - Biden: At least Delaware will see some Change.™”
6. “Obama - Biden: Joe Biden’s crazy ideas have found a silky smooth voice.”
7. “Obama - Biden: We promise it’ll be a team effort.”
8. “Obama - Biden: Because McCain’s VP has almost as little experience as Obama.”
9. “Obama - Biden: Hope and Change®, Now with Attack Dog™ Technology”
10. “Obama - Biden: Smooth & Dreamy meets Sour and Crunchy.”

In last night’s speech Barack Obama claimed that, “we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.“  So what?  Senator McCain has been in office for 26 years.  That’s an average increase of 4.2% per year (with compounding).

Second, and more importantly, what does that have to do with anything?  John McCain is one senator out of 100.  His biography is full of amazing stories of courage, sacrifice and accomplishment.  Surely, though, Senator Obama is not saying the John McCain has been single-handedly responsible for US energy policy for the last 25 years.  What else can we put on his shoulders?  US GDP has increased by 200% since McCain took office.  Hamburger sales have skyrocketed.  Shark attacks have been almost eliminated since McCain was elected.  Maybe he’s an oil importing, GDP raising, hamburger eating, shark killing leviathan.  If so, he has my vote.

Newsweek (and Slate) ran a disgusting article last week implying that, if you don’t vote for Obama, you are a racist.  I say implying because the article actually said:

If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world’s judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn’t put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

This is a disgusting charge for many reasons.  Not the least of which is that it makes the absurd claim that there is nothing in Obama’s policies with which reasonable people could disagree.  Given the oft-repeated charge that Obama and Clinton ran on the same platform, what would this victimizer have said had she won the nomination, but lost the general election?  We’re too sexist?

Republicans are too skittish about race.  McCain should put an end to this, and he should do it in his acceptance speech.  Here is my suggestion for what he should say:

I commend Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party for nominating the first African-American nominee.   Senator Obama’s meteoric rise has belied the claim that America is too racist to consider a minority candidate for president.

There are, however, those who may vote for me because of my skin color, or against Senator Obama because of his.  To those people, I ask you to stay home.  There is no place in politics or in America for racism.  My differences with Senator Obama go to the content of his character; his policies, his judgment and his inexperience.

The speech was very well delivered.  Of course, it contained the usual demagoguery of oil companies and the wealthy.  It even included the idiotic reference to a boy who complained his mother is on minimum wage, but her boss cut her hours.  I remember when she first used that story.  The reason it’s idiotic is that the boy was more likely complaining about the pointlessness of raising the minimum wage.  Even after Democrats forced through an increase, his mom still didn’t make any more money.  It’s an argument against central planning.

But Hillary’s speech was notable more than anything for what she didn’t say.  She never said Barack Obama was qualified to be president.  She never said, or even implied, that she was wrong to question his experience or leadership.  She said she supported him, but not why.  Everything she said about Obama could have just as easily applied to any other Democratic candidate.  With Barack Obama now trailing in the polls (Gallup has McCain up 46-44%), it’s a smart move.  Hillary reminds everyone why she ran and who she is, and oh, by the way, she supports the Democratic nominee, whomever it may be.

Here now, a brief paraphrase of Hillary Clinton’s speech:

I’m proud of my daughter and my country.  Unlike some people, I’ve been proud for a while now.  I’ve worked tirelessly for 35 years for all the policies and programs that just occurred to Barack Obama last week, when he started his political career.

But this campaign wasn’t just about me.  It started in 1848, and I have become more than just a presidential candidate. I have become a symbol of the hopes and dreams of more than half of the nation.  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

You have to ask yourself why you started supporting me as your candidate.  When you do, remember the words of Harriet Tubman, who said “keep on going.  Don’t stop, ever.”  Seriously, don’t stop supporting me.

But, if you’re going to make the mistake of nominating someone else as the Democratic nominee, well, I’ll support whomever they are for president over my friend, the war hero and accomplished public servant, John McCain.  And if that other Democrat fails, just keep in mind that the last time Republicans were in office for 12 years in a row, a Clinton came in after them.  See you in four years.

Recently, Oprah, had an episode about healthcare.  Oprah, Michael Moore and other guests continued to refer to healthcare as a right.  Many people disagree with this fundamental issue, but have difficulty articulating why. So here is my best effort to explain to the five people who read this blog, why it is I believe that healthcare is not a “right.”

The classic response is that a right is not something someone gives you, but something that no one can take away.  This a good bumper sticker, but it is not terribly instructive if you’re not already convinced.  I don’t presume to solve the problem of escalating healthcare costs.  Due in part to rapid advances in medical treatments, ordinary people are being forced to choose between lifesaving treatments that didn’t exist only a few years ago and bankruptcy.  Rampant lawsuits, anti-healthcare provider forces and those evil profit seekers can be left for another time.  A more basic question, however, is whether you (and I) have a right to healthcare.

Rights are not unlimited.  Rights can be restricted or even taken away.  For example, you have the right to liberty (to walk freely wherever you please).  But others can restrict that right in certain circumstances.  You cannot, for example, walk freely through your neighbors bedroom at night.  That would violate their right to privacy.  If you commit a crime and are tried and convicted, your liberty can be revoked completely.

Rights really only make sense in the context of a lawful society.  Governments are instituted, as a basic matter, to determine where one person’s rights end and another’s begins. For example, you have a right to free speech, but others have a right against defamation.  If you say something untrue and defamatory about someone, the government can determine whose right trumps.

From the perspective of the government, a right is something that can be ensured to one citizen without taxing (in the broadest sense) another citizen.  For example, the government can ensure your right to free speech without any cost to anyone else.  No one has to listen (you do not, for example, have the right to be listened to).  Nor does anyone have to publish your work.  You do not, however, have the right to a full-page spread in the Wall Street Journal.  If, however, you can afford to, you can purchase one (or the Wall Street Journal) and say pretty much whatever you want.  (Subject, of course, to others’ rights to be free from defamation and other torts).

In a (mostly) free and (mostly) just society like ours, rights are plentiful.  You have, to name a few, the right to bear arms, the right to your life, your liberty, the pursuit of your happiness.  To be sure, however, this does not mean the government must buy you a gun.  Nor does it mean government must purchase the things that make you happy.  It only means that government cannot restrict these rights without due process of law.

This is the crux of the issue: there is a difference between a right and a need.  For example, you need food, clothing and shelter.  You have a right to pursue these needs; the government will not prevent you from buying a home, buying food or buying a new pair of jeans.  The government does not, however, owe you a house, food or clothing.  You have no right to housing, no right to food and no right to clothing.

Consider a small society of 100 people, with laws not too dissimilar to ours.  Let’s assume 2 of these people are unable, for whatever reason, to afford their own home.  Among the other people are a carpenter, a logger, a blacksmith, a painter and a plumber.  If the government is to provide those two people with housing, it has to either (i) tax everyone to pay the workmen to build the house or (ii) compel the workmen to build the house for free.  Either way, the government must take something of value to provide this need to those who cannot obtain it on their own.

So it is with healthcare.  You need healthcare.  Everyone does.  But in order to provide you with that need, the government has to take from someone else.  They either have to tax those who can afford it or compel the doctors, pharmacists and hospitals to provide it for free.  You may think, as clearly many do, that this is not such an evil thing.  Think back to that “free” house, though.  Think how hard those workmen would work if they knew that they either weren’t being paid for their efforts, or that some nebulous body called “taxpayers” were paying them.  Also, consider how many people would voluntarily buy their own house when they knew that others had gotten on for free.  Imagine the standard of construction and innovation that would develop if housing were treated as a right; as something the government needed to provide.

Of course, governments do this all the time.  They tax one citizen to pay for another’s welfare (literally and figuratively).  They tax me to pay for your social security.  They tax you to pay for my passport.  They tax all most of us to provide for our common defense.  The point, however, is that that does not make it a right.

Governments have many purposes.  The common defense is one that most people agree on as a valid rationale for taxes.  Saving the spotted owl, however, is debatable.  So too is providing healthcare.

UPDATE: You like me, you really, really like me.  Thanks to John Hawkins at Right Wing News and the David All Group for the acknowledgment!

Top 10 Signs Obama May Pick John Kerry as VP

10. Trying to lock up the Irish Catholic vote with an O’Bama - Kerry ticket.
9. Michael Dukakis won’t return Obama’s phone calls.
8. Last week at Whole Foods, Obama ordered an arugala salad with Heinz ketchup.
7. Obama picked up windsurfing in Hawaii.
6. Obama voted for Kerry before he voted against him.
5. Last week Obama said “if you work hard and get an education, you can become the democratic nominee. If not, you can get stuck as VP.”
4. Why have one crazy spouse on the ticket when you can have two?
3. Obama keeps mentioning that his VP pick must pass the “global test”.
2. Nothing says “Change we can believe in” like a 65-year old billionaire white guy with 25 years in Congress.
1. When Obama said there were 57 states, he was thinking ketchup varieties.

At a town hall meeting in Berea , Ohio, today, Senator Obama (D-iva), called John McCain and his campaign ignorant for mocking Obama’s tire inflation plan.

You know the other day I was in a town hall meeting and I laid out my plans for investing $15 billion a year in energy efficient cars and a new electricity grid and somebody said, ‘well, what can I do? what can individuals do’

So I told them something simple, I said, ‘You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we’d get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.’

So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they do. I don’t understand it! They’re going around, they’re sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is ‘Barack Obama’s energy plan.’

Now two points, one, they know they’re lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they’re making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

You know, they think it is funny that they are making fun of something that is actually true. They need to do their homework. Because this is serious business. Instead of running ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears they should go talk to some energy experts and actually make a difference.

First, as Jake Tapper points out, this is not exactly what Obama said “the other day.”  In fact, he said, “we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires.” (Note the background laughter in the audience after he says this.  Perhaps someone at the pep rally was also proud to be ignorant.)

There’s something more devious, however, than Obama’s merely recasting what it is he said to make him look less of an idiot.  By slight of hand, he also converts a 3-4% increase in fuel economy to a 3-4% decrease in demand, and puts words in the mouths of experts who never said any such thing.

So what would this air inflation savings really mean?

1. Only about 1/3 to 1/4 of drivers have underinflated tires.  That means that the average fuel economy increase would only average out to 1-1.33%. (taking the pro-Obama number of 1/3).
2. Fuel economy is inversely proportional to fuel demand.  Put another way, a 4% increase in fuel economy is not a 4% decrease in demand.  For example, let’s say your car has under-inflated tires and gets 20 mpg as is.   If you drive 1000 miles a month, you use 50 gallons.  You then inflate your tires to get a whopping additional .8 mpg (a 4% increase).   It now takes 48.08 gallons (a savings of 3.8%).  This effect is even high as your percent increase increases.  (For example a 10% increase is only a 9.1% reduction in fuel demand.  A ).  It may seem like a small difference, but .2% of total fuel consumed in the US is 14.6 million barrels per year.  In any event, this 3.8% reduction in demand only applies to 1 out of every 3 drivers (at most), meaning it’s really a 1.27% decrease in overall demand for gasoline.
3. Finally, gasoline is not the only product made from crude oil.  Jet fuel, plastics, lubricants, waxes, asphalt and other products are made from crude oil.  Gasoline is only about 50% of a barrel of crude oil, so a 1.27% decrease in our gasoline demand may not, necessarily, result in a 1.27% decrease in overall demand for crude oil.  That would depend on what is driving demand for crude.  My guess is that gasoline and diesel are the drivers, but that may not be true year-round.

The point here is that no expert has ever said anything of the kind.  Just like Clinton’s ridiculous claim that “Russian missles are no longer pointed at our children,” this comment is made of thin air.

The media have been screaming bloody murder over Exxon’s recent quarterly results. Even the Anointed One has decreed that these profits are “excessive” and has announced a blatantly socialist plan to further tax Exxon so that he can buy votes with $1000 stimulus checks.

While it’s true that Exxon’s net profits of $11.7 billion is a record quarterly profit for any company, the numbers are far more interesting.  Mark Perry at iStockAnalyst points out that Exxon paid 3 times that amount in taxes already!

As I noted briefly in his comment section, if you simplify Exxon to be solely a gasoline vendor, here is how the average $4 per gallon price breaks down:

That means, all tolled, the government (federal, state and local) receives $1.23 per gallon and Exxon receives $0.31 per gallon.

So, who’s making the windfall profit?

By the way, the $2.46?  That mostly goes to foreign governments who own the only lands our Congress will allow us to drill.  I’m sure that will end well.

UPDATE: By the way, if Obama’s $50 billion stimulus plan were enacted, the taxes would (as they are now) merely be passed on to the consumer.  Meaning that, assuming for simplicity sake, everything else remained constant, Obama’s $50 billion would add $1.32 to the price of gasoline.  Even if you assume Exxon’s profits went to zero, the price of gas would instantly go up to about $5.00 per gallon.

$5/gallon gas in January?  Yes We Can!

UPDATE #2:  One reader pointed out that Obama’s plan would spread his “windfall profits tax” over 5 years (and presumably more oil companies than just Exxon).  That would only increase the price to about $4.30 or so.