Friday, June 20, 2008

A small reflection on the constant Leftist call for unity

It is a demand for everybody to agree with them of course -- and a threat to all dissent. Obama is the most notable practitioner at the moment. So we should not be surprised that the country which invented welfare legislation -- Germany -- still focuses heavily on unity in their national anthem:

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit (Unity and justice and freedom)
Fuer das deutsche Vaterland! (for the German fatherland)
Danach lasst uns alle streben (for that let us all strive)
Bruederlich mit Herz und Hand! (in brotherhood with heart and hand)
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit (Unity and justice and freedom)
Sind des Glueckes Unterpfand. (Are the guarantee of happiness)

And that's the anthem of MODERN Germany, not the Nazi regime! The Nazi version was even more expansive, of course -- with "brothers standing together" etc. When the above words were written in 1841, Germany had not been united into one nation so the song was aimed primarily at agitating for such a nation. Since Germany has been a single nation since 1872, however, the words are sung today for obviously quite different reasons: Leftist intolerance of dissent and desire for power at the top. Rather different from "The land of the free and the home of the brave". Obama's ideals are German, not American.

There is an extensive commentary on Leftist calls for unity here. It notes that there are some occasions on which unity is a reasonable expectation but -- surprise! -- it is in precisely such cases that Leftists deride unity. Unity is desired as a means to Leftist power, nothing else. If it doesn't serve that, who needs it?

Rather surprisingly, the article does not mention the great Nazi slogan: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" (One people, one State, one leader).


No Profits, No Oil

If a product is in short supply and if you really wanted more to be produced quickly, would you want companies to think that they could earn a lot of money making it? You would think that the answer is pretty obvious: No profits, no oil. To encourage more production, companies need to think that there are more profits to be made. With all the anger over high oil prices, more production to lower prices would seem to be a high priority. But outside of most congressional Republicans, particularly those in the Senate who successfully filibustered a new wind-fall profits tax on oil companies, no one wants to admit what profits do.

Unfortunately, both the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates are both attacking oil company profits. Barack Obama promises, "We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging. We've got to go after windfall profits." John McCain says, "I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies. Not only because of the obscene profits they've made, but their failure to invest in alternative energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Not to be outdone, congressional Democrats are just as upset. New York's Senator Chuck Schumer claimed: "Oil companies are racking up obscene profits left and right while American families are stretched to the limit by skyrocketing gas prices. It's time for Big Oil to pay its fair share . . . ."

The defense of oil companies has been much to, well, defensive. Some pundits and those in the industry point out that energy companies aren't really making that much money. While the energy companies during the first quarter of this year had an average profit margin of 7,4 percent, the average Dow Jones Industrial Average company earned 8.5 percent. For example, ExxonMobil, which Obama has singled out for particular criticism, made an "obscene" $40 billion in profit, but that is on $404 billion in sales.

Much of the discussion concerning record high profits is misleading as it focuses on the dollar amount of the profits not the profit rate. As sales have also gone up over time, of course total profits have gone up, too. Nor are looking at just a couple of years particularly useful. Others point out federal, state, and local governments have made more from gasoline taxes than the large U.S. oil companies have earned in total U.S. profits.

But all this assumes that companies should prove that their profits aren't "too large." That high profits aren't good. Do customers want more gas? Higher profits increase production, driving down both prices and profits. Ironically, at the same time politicians are complaining about corporate greed, they understand the importance of incentives. If Obama didn't think that companies responded to incentives, why else would he propose that $150 billion be spent by the government on developing alternative energy?

More here



For the latest Associated Press humiliation, see here. No wonder they don't want bloggers to quote them! And it's even a Leftist blogger taking them to task!

McCain wants 45 new nuke reactors by 2030: "Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in Federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies." McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20% of the nation's annual electricity needs. "Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

Conservative talker locked out: "Laura Ingraham, the most popular woman on political talk radio, has been off the air for two weeks, and not by choice. Ingraham's syndicator, Talk Radio Network, barred her from her Washington studio after talks about a new contract hit a snag, and some of her fans are mounting a campaign to get her back. "The fact is, they took her off the air," says Eric Bernthal, her lawyer. "There's no doubt in my mind they did it as a tactic in contract negotiations," he told the Washington Post. Ingraham said on her website: "Rest assured, this absence is not of my choosing, nor is it health or family related. I am ready, willing and eager to continue the conversation we started seven years ago about politics and the culture ... I would never voluntarily abandon you during such a critical time for our country," she assured listeners"

Muslim pedophile caught: "Police arrested a man Tuesday in connection with an attempted child enticement case in Denver. Mohammed Al Hamdani, 39, was taken into custody after an 11-year-old girl snapped a photo of a man with her cell phone who was allegedly trying to abduct her at Bible Park in southeast Denver. It was unclear from a Denver Police Department press release whether the photo led to the arrest of the man. The 11-year-old girl told police a man approached her at the park and asked her to get in his car, reported. She said no, snapped a picture of the man with her cell phone and ran away from him, according to the TV station. The girl turned the cell phone image over to police, who distributed the man's photo to the public"


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"McCain wants 45 new nuke reactors by 2030" is ASTONISHING. I live in the USA, and take both it's Upper West Side (where I live) and Middle America pulse (where my family visits drag me to) regularly. I think McCain may have just won the election with a single stone toss across the bow of religious Leftism. My god. You see, us Americans don't turn away from things very well. That's why Bush got narrowly elected the first time, but won wartime re-election in a landslide. Few people, if stopped on the street would even remember the name of his second-term Democratic opponent. Pray tell you discount the simple fact that TV video of a Pearl Harbor magnitude attack on my city (North America's only European city besides maybe Vancouver in Canada) was not analogous to sport. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not felt as a war, but as a team vs. team sport we intend to win, not far from the popular show called Battlebots in which robots cut each other up with big saws, sparks flying everywhere as metal turns white hot. I state this as mere analogy and example of how a typical voter thinks. Taxes be damned, at heart, US citizens, though be they often ignorant that wealth is most often created by new innovative IDEAS, they understand quite well that the real source of money ("wealth" in textbooks) derives from the LITERAL POWER of bigger bombs, bigger power plants and bigger balls. CONSERVATION is not in our blood, and I say that in the Churchillian sense or how Queen Elizabeth upon the approach of the Spanish Armada exclaimed how though she had the body of a weak and feeble woman, she had the heart and stomach of a king ("and of a king of England too").

[World government? Mere chatter in Washington. Not in Middle America, and as God is my witness, nor on the Upper West Side either. An East River location is actually where the United Nations is located. The area literally stinks as the straw thin East River tourist boat traffic *and* a massive coastal highway passes within literal yards of the UN building. Nobody wants to live there, not because the very wide UN building literally blocks the sunrise but because there's no walk from block-to-block nature that embodies why New Yorker's LOVE our city so much. The only view of that of this Soviet-like planned housing on Roosevelt Island, and the abandoned docks skyscraper lacking Brooklyn, those docks long ago taken over by much more massive ones in New Jersey.]