Shut Up Chuck

Although he doesn't actually come right out and say it, my Washington Post summary email on Charles Krauthammer's column today called From Market Economy to Political Economy did one of those "Shorter Chuckles" thingies, saying,

This is not the time to pursue an economic agenda based on liberal social goals.

Is it ever with these twits? Onward and forever to tax-cutting and cannibal capitalism!

Creepier still is what he actually has to say, conflating the evils of lobbyists who have a worse reputation than lawyers lately, Wall Street bankers who as a group are probably less popular that the C+ Augustus still aggravatingly living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that Chucky has been fellating O' these many years, and the entire city of Detroit with its principle industry as both a wholly subsumed nationalized colony of Washington DC with its hand out like any common crook lobbyist as well.

For the hat-trick, he looks in his crystal ball and declares any attempt to assist the auto industry in modernizing and greening our future stinks of the Soviet Union's completely planned Diktats on every factory floor, then pronounces the entire effort doomed to the same failure.

All this because we might want GM, Ford and Chrysler to build affordable, fuel efficient hybrid cars if they want a loan. (And they should look really cool too, but that's just me.)

The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of."

I smell fear. Fear that events and the excesses of those who share Krauthammer's dementia are truly irrelevant, increasingly so in a world that is passing them by. The more they sink into the "ash heap" of their "commercial republic," the more outlandish the rhetoric will become.

I've no doubt Charlie will be deriding President Obama in stark terms in short order. He'll compare Obama to Stalin for instituting virtual gulags for FOX reporters who never get to ask a question at press conferences. He'll demand the Democrats provide bridge loans to house the refugees of a Purity Purge as soon as he doesn't retain every single incompetent US Attorney hired by AG Gonzales based their use of smiley-faces instead of periods at the end of each sentence in their essay on "What I Did Over My Summer Vacation To Make George W. Bush Even More Awesome." Obama will walk on sour wine and only heal everybody those who wait in line long enough to see a doctor that doesn't speak English -- since all the "good" docs, those still permitted membership in those whites-only country-clubs, will have left the country to set up practice in Dubai.

No doubt my crystal ball is fractured just as much as Krauthammer's. The problem is that he looks through his murky lens to see the past, and the present -- wrongly.

Just keep this in mind with all this talk of nationalization and socialism right now, communists didn't "loan" capital to industry. They just took over, declared the state the owners and ultimate authority over everything. They didn't just hand over rubles to company managers, with or without conditions. For the various bailouts to be anything remotely resembling what the Bolsheviks did, we would have to completely replace the management of those companies with federal bureaucrats and destroy shareholder equity.

Indeed, there wouldn't be any stock market for Chuckles to get his skirts all twisted over when it bolts up and down on the latest message from Obama or Secretary Paulson. Under Soviet-style socialism, for those who either don't know nor care to grok, you don't play with fractions of ownership rights in corporations like so many casino chips. You eliminate corporations altogether.

Not to put too much an edge on it, when President Obama decides to "buy" GM et al., I'll worry about our new socialist overlords. Telling the automakers that they only will get the USA as a co-signer on their loan application if they promise to use the money for good -- good for the USA btw -- is just plain old-fashioned horse trading, capitalism in it's purest form.

There are no free lunches, right? You want something from me, I get something in return -- and if you want it bad enough I can demand very favorable terms. What part of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" stuff don't these Free Marketeers understand? I mean, Detroit doesn't have to take the deal and can take their chances.

CHANGE Is Not Normal

So the upside to the global financial crisis is gasoline is down to $1.67 a gallon, right?  As they say in the Peoples Republic of Alaska: You Betcha!

It's troubling though.  People just can't handle too much turmoil in their lives, even when it saves them money.  Just ask this nice lady I met at the gas station.

I'm in line at the cashier, just stopping in to grab some smokes.  (I hear they're bad for for me.  Who knew?)  This woman comes in and tells the girl behind the counter that the pump is broken.

"There's something wrong with pump 2.  It only will go up to 17, then shuts off.  I can't get any more gas out of it."

The checkout girl looks confused when a helpful guy right in front of me says, "Maybe it's full."  Sure enough, unless her Ford Escort's gas tank is bone dry, a Twenty buys more gas than it can hold.  She went out to test the theory.

She came back a little red-faced to collect her change -- change she never would have believed in.

The Bull On Barack Killing Coal

Gimme a break.  Obama Loves Coal.

The desperate Wingosphere has latched on to an out of context quote by Barack Obama "discovered" in an interview posted online since January by the San Francisco Chronicle, spreading what no doubt will be a very effective last minute fear tactic designed to influence any vacillating members of the low-info, Appalachian coal mining, don't-need-much-of-an-excuse-to-vote-against-the-black-guy voters in Southern Ohio and Western PA and VA.  (Hidden in plain sight.)

MoveOn.org was livid with Obama because of his stance on coal.  This lie that Obama is anti-coal is so Rovian you almost have to admire the last minute smear attack on what was an Obama weakness that only in Appalachia is a strength.  Genius or dumb luck, this one is really something else.  If there was more time, it's a backfire issue that would reveal Obama at his reaching-over-the-aisle best.  Now it's just a rhetorical hand grenade.

I remember last spring when coal, specifically Obama's flip-flops on liquefied coal technology became a big frickin' deal to a lot of my John Edwards supporting friends in Blogtopia.  So stark the differences between Obama and Edwards, many of the enviro-bloggers were convinced that Edwards would win the primary on this issue alone.  No really, especially since one of Obama's co-sponsors on the bill promoting the use of the dirtiest of all fossil fuels as a transportation gasoline substitute -- guaranteed to make global warming worst, not better -- was Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig. 

That's right, Obama is so opposed to the coal industry, wants to funnel huge amounts of tax dollars to them.  Obama supports of federal money for coal as an "alternative fuel."

Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry,
lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee
billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production
plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big
government purchases for the next 25 years¦

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate
committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants,
each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for
every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies
if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force
to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of
coal-based jet fuel.

I understand how Sarah Palin and her supporters could miss this obscure bit of news, buried on the Front Page of the New York Times.  They don't read and they don't care.

The Friends of the Earth environmental group endorsed John Edwards, and not Obama or Clinton in no small part because of this coal thing.

Q:   What is your position on Coal to
Liquid technology?   One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored
a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology.  Edwards
opposes CtL.  What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean
for our environment?

A:   Liquid coal is a bad idea for our
country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions
to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount
of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically
and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama,
Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid
technology.

We thought this was the ultimate stupid move for someone vying for the Democratic nomination.  You should see my email:

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator's green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

See, Edwards was much more enviro-friendly than either Clinton or Obama, as note at the time by Politico, much to the delight of the green contingent of Edwards' supporters.  I wasn't really all that green for an Edwards backer, but I noted the argument, which is why I know the latest stuff about Obama out to bankrupt the coal industry is pure fantasy.  We were bitching that Obama was in the pocket of Big Coal.

The Edwards website is history, but I'm sure there's evidence in the Way-Back Machine.  Edwards never directly mentioned his opposition to coal-to-liquid; his energy proposal included other means to utilize coal while reducing emissions, that and the absence of coal to liquid are indicated below in some of the Press Releases I saved when Obama's stance on Liquid Coal became an issue.  This was supposed to show a contrast with Obama:

Edwards opposes coal-to-liquid technology as a viable clean fuel alternative.  John Edwards’ energy plan includes utilizing coal in a “major role” so that the U.S. and the world can meet its energy needs, but he has advocated for carbon capture methods so that hazardous carbon emissions are dramatically reduced.  Edwards advocates for coal gasification technology and carbon sequestration technology in energy production, a method supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council to combat global warming.  
 
EDWARDS PROPOSED INCREASED INVESTMENT FOR SAFE STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM COAL POWERED PRODUCTION
 
2007: Edwards Called For New Coal Power Plants To Have Coal Capture Technology So That Emissions Are Stored And Not Released Into the Atmosphere.  “Edwards believes we need to find a way to use coal without heating the planet. As president, Edwards will require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions, so plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow. He also committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground.” [Edwards for President press release, 3/26/07, http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070326-cleaner-coal/]

As you can tell, we actually thought this was a smoking gun kind of issue, that the Al Gore wing of the Democratic Party could not possibly support Barack Obama mainly due to his friendly attitude on coal. For Sarah Palin and her drooling Wingnut circus to claim he's out to destroy the industry is ludicrous.

McGimmick Of The Day

So lemme get this straight.

I develop a revolutionary energy storage device that is efficient, light weight, long lasting and powerful, and on top of the billions of dollars that will undoubtedly be my reward for commercialization of such a breakthrough device that simultaneously solves our nation's energy needs, weens us off our fossil fuel addiction and dramatically improves the environment -- Johny McC-Loony Tunes will have everyone in America chip in an extra buck for my piggy bank.

w00t!

I got news for ya pal. Toyota is waaay ahead of you.