Brent Baker credits Brian Williams for adding to the silly speculation about a link between the recent decline in gasoline prices and the upcoming mid-term elections.
USA Today dutifully reports a statistical relationship between gas prices and President Bush's popularity rating.
OK, one more time. I'll go slow.
1. Retail gasoline prices are driven by several 'macro' factors. What the President of the United States or his Big Oil friends want those prices to be is not one of those factors.
The biggest factor is the price of crude oil in the world market, a market that is dominated by OPEC, the oil cartel.
The second biggest factor is refining, as refiners change the mix of their production among gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, and other petroleum-based products. Those refining decisions, in turn, are affected by wholesale prices (refiners produce what will bring the highest price).
The third factor is consumer demand. In the fall, demand for gasoline drops, as consumers' summer travel is over. Plus, persistent high prices may have finally caused people to drive less, to save money. Demand for heating oil increases, as consumers in northern climes fill their tank for the winter heating season. So, the late September drop in gasoline prices is completely consistent with declining demand for gasoline.
2. Basic Economic Theory. Sorry, I probably didn't go slow enough on one point, which is this: the most basic element of microeconomic theory is that the price of a good is a function of the relationship of the supply of that good with the demand for it. If demand is constant, a greater supply means that prices will decline, as buyers have leverage against sellers and can price shop. A decreased supply means that prices increase. This is pretty intuitive.
A slightly more advanced concept is that suppliers adapt to the marketplace. When gas prices are high, refiners will produce more, thus lowering the price. Of course, that takes time, as producers may have existing contractual obligations to deliver alternative products, for somme period of time, or may have to make changes to their production process to switch to a more profitiable product.
3. The President Doesn't Have That Much Power. There are a lot of things the POTUS can do: declare war, hand out discretionary funds, establish relationships with foreign governments.
But there are a lot of things the President can't do jack squat about: he can't control the capital markets (though in times of turmoil he might give a rah-rah speech to calm everyone down), interest rates, gas prices, or oil prices.
He doesn't have that power, and his "big oil" buddies don't either. The whole thing is driven by huge, worldwide economic forces that are beyond EVERYONE's control (yes, even OPEC, to a great extent).
4. Everything You See Is Not a Conspiracy. Grow a brain, and realize that, in this big, crazy world we live in, every little happening or occurrence is NOT a big conspiracy. Sometimes we, as 'little people,' imagine that there are big, powerful people out there with lots of strings to pull and lots of things to control.
While there is such a thing as influence, and people DO manipulate governments and markets, those manipulations are on a tiny, micro level. They are things like getting your 3-acre lot re-zoned, or getting a $100,000 grant from corrupt Governor Blagojevich.
Huge, world-wide commodities markets are not manipulated by a guy who spends most of his day meeting with the Girl Scout troop from Cleveland who sold the most Girl Scout cookies.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Ken Pirok is Misunderstood
Ken Pirok has plead guilty to drunk driving in Champaign County court on Friday. You will recall that he turned the White Horse parking lot into a bumper car game in the wee hours of August 11, 2006.
In the classic manuever of trying to turn the tables, now it turns out that my hero Ken is a victim of a police smear campaign. He didn't try to drive away after he parked into a car, he says, he went back into the bar to find the owner. No word on whether he was hoisting a fresh drink when Johnny Law found him.
I'm surprised that Ken can even stand to be in bars, given that, for the moment, they remain all smoked up and unhealthy. Thanks to Progressive Ken, however, that will chnage soon. Then Ken can go out, get tanked up, and endanger everyone else without the inconvenience of having to wash his clothes when he gets home.
In the classic manuever of trying to turn the tables, now it turns out that my hero Ken is a victim of a police smear campaign. He didn't try to drive away after he parked into a car, he says, he went back into the bar to find the owner. No word on whether he was hoisting a fresh drink when Johnny Law found him.
I'm surprised that Ken can even stand to be in bars, given that, for the moment, they remain all smoked up and unhealthy. Thanks to Progressive Ken, however, that will chnage soon. Then Ken can go out, get tanked up, and endanger everyone else without the inconvenience of having to wash his clothes when he gets home.
I Don't Get the Anti-Chief Crowd
Here's what I don't get about the anti-Chief crowd, i.e., the Charlene Teeters, the Debbie Reeses:
Do they identify with Chief IIliniwek and imagine that THEY are somehow related to him?
Or are they taking the viewpoint of unnamed others who they think might identify with him?
Or are they just imagining that majority white society really believes that stereotypic depictions of American Indians are accurate?
Here's the thing: as a part of that majority white society, I don't take offense to depictions of drunk or evil white people as anyone that I have a connection to. If I see the classic "cowboy" movie on television, I don't think for a minute that people living on the frontier really dressed, talked or acted like that. Nor do I worry that I will be confused with evil, white trash hillbillies running amok on the plains.
My ancestors came from Germany in the 1870's. But I don't get offended when I see or hear things about Krauts or Germans or their particular qualities. I don't get all worked up when I hear about Aryan skinheads, and worry that somehow I will be lumped in with their particular brand of politics.
Similarly, I do not for a minute imagine that the depictions of Indians as "savages" are accurate representations of what those people were actually about.
I do not define myself by my membership in any particular racial or ethnic group, and I don't give a damn if others do. I don't really care if you call me a racist bigot. You are the people with a perceived problem, and apparently not a lot else to worry about.
That's what I don't get about the anti-Chief whiners.
Do they identify with Chief IIliniwek and imagine that THEY are somehow related to him?
Or are they taking the viewpoint of unnamed others who they think might identify with him?
Or are they just imagining that majority white society really believes that stereotypic depictions of American Indians are accurate?
Here's the thing: as a part of that majority white society, I don't take offense to depictions of drunk or evil white people as anyone that I have a connection to. If I see the classic "cowboy" movie on television, I don't think for a minute that people living on the frontier really dressed, talked or acted like that. Nor do I worry that I will be confused with evil, white trash hillbillies running amok on the plains.
My ancestors came from Germany in the 1870's. But I don't get offended when I see or hear things about Krauts or Germans or their particular qualities. I don't get all worked up when I hear about Aryan skinheads, and worry that somehow I will be lumped in with their particular brand of politics.
Similarly, I do not for a minute imagine that the depictions of Indians as "savages" are accurate representations of what those people were actually about.
I do not define myself by my membership in any particular racial or ethnic group, and I don't give a damn if others do. I don't really care if you call me a racist bigot. You are the people with a perceived problem, and apparently not a lot else to worry about.
That's what I don't get about the anti-Chief whiners.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Fight Back America
Lest we need another reminder, the disturbing news about the murder of 16-year-old Emily Keyes in a school shooting in Bailey, Colorado this week confirms it. This country needs to toughen up.
Everyone, now: turn to your kids, your parents, your loved ones, your colleagues and co-workers, and tell them that they have to save themselves, and that they should not hesitate to do it.
If and when some deranged clown comes in to your school, or onto your plane, or into your office, or your restaurant, or your shopping mall,waving a gun and intending harm, get out if you can. But if you can't, or if you believe that you can intervene and do some good, TAKE THAT CLOWN OUT!
Naturally, it's easier said than done, and when loud blasts start going off down the hall, our human instinct is to cut and run, duck and cover, get out alive. And that's probably a good idea. Let's be clear: I am not in any way being critical of anything anyone has done who actually been in such a situation. In some cases, it might be best to lay low. And not all of us are inclined to jump a gunman.
But when conflict with the gunman is inevitable, when you or others are backed into a corner, or your only choice is to submit and turn your life and safety over to a stranger who means you harm, don't hesitate. Go at him or her with everything you have.
We need to be like the brave souls on Flight 93, and defend ourselves. Let's face it: there aren't enough cops or troops or airline security screeners to do a damn thing for you when the stuff hits the fan.
I tell my kids: if someone comes up to you with a gun and tells you to get in his car, DON'T DO IT. Run like hell. They probably won't shoot, and even if they do, you're better off being dead or injured than getting in that car and putting your very existence in his hands.
And if you are a kid in school, run like hell. Don't wait for anyone to give you permission. Don't expect your principal or your teacher to get control of the situation. They are undoubtedly good and conscientious people, and you should give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you see a way to get clear of a bad situation, take it.
Or, if you have some size and confidence, and the situation is such that you can overcome the killer, don't wait. Jump in. Better to go down trying than go down cowering or pleading. And if you are in a situation, and someone tackles the murderer, pile on. Grab the gun. Shoot the bad guy. Kick him in the head. Drop a rock on him. Poke a scissors into his eye.
Katrina should have taught us: don't wait for the cavalry to show up with the evacuation bus: get on your own two feet and get out of town on your own power. Carry someone else on your back.
Flight 93 should have taught us: if the choices are bad and worse, do what you can to get the hell out. Even if your odds aren't good. Better to go down swinging than to duck and cover. Don't passively prepare to die; prepare to conquer your attacker.
Fight back, America! (People are trying to kill us).
Everyone, now: turn to your kids, your parents, your loved ones, your colleagues and co-workers, and tell them that they have to save themselves, and that they should not hesitate to do it.
If and when some deranged clown comes in to your school, or onto your plane, or into your office, or your restaurant, or your shopping mall,waving a gun and intending harm, get out if you can. But if you can't, or if you believe that you can intervene and do some good, TAKE THAT CLOWN OUT!
Naturally, it's easier said than done, and when loud blasts start going off down the hall, our human instinct is to cut and run, duck and cover, get out alive. And that's probably a good idea. Let's be clear: I am not in any way being critical of anything anyone has done who actually been in such a situation. In some cases, it might be best to lay low. And not all of us are inclined to jump a gunman.
But when conflict with the gunman is inevitable, when you or others are backed into a corner, or your only choice is to submit and turn your life and safety over to a stranger who means you harm, don't hesitate. Go at him or her with everything you have.
We need to be like the brave souls on Flight 93, and defend ourselves. Let's face it: there aren't enough cops or troops or airline security screeners to do a damn thing for you when the stuff hits the fan.
I tell my kids: if someone comes up to you with a gun and tells you to get in his car, DON'T DO IT. Run like hell. They probably won't shoot, and even if they do, you're better off being dead or injured than getting in that car and putting your very existence in his hands.
And if you are a kid in school, run like hell. Don't wait for anyone to give you permission. Don't expect your principal or your teacher to get control of the situation. They are undoubtedly good and conscientious people, and you should give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you see a way to get clear of a bad situation, take it.
Or, if you have some size and confidence, and the situation is such that you can overcome the killer, don't wait. Jump in. Better to go down trying than go down cowering or pleading. And if you are in a situation, and someone tackles the murderer, pile on. Grab the gun. Shoot the bad guy. Kick him in the head. Drop a rock on him. Poke a scissors into his eye.
Katrina should have taught us: don't wait for the cavalry to show up with the evacuation bus: get on your own two feet and get out of town on your own power. Carry someone else on your back.
Flight 93 should have taught us: if the choices are bad and worse, do what you can to get the hell out. Even if your odds aren't good. Better to go down swinging than to duck and cover. Don't passively prepare to die; prepare to conquer your attacker.
Fight back, America! (People are trying to kill us).
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Kaufman Kills Future of Illini Sports
NOOOOOooooooooooooooo!
Now that wacky and irrepressible prof Stephen Kaufman has gone and done it! He has upped the ante and will really put the screws to the University of Illinois administration by {gulp} sending out mailers to prospective athletes! News-Gazette (September 21, 206)
The mailers (24 pages strong!) will "inform potential student athletes of the racial discrimination and stereotyping the university chooses to maintain." U of I professor Phillip Phillips (still a bit pissed at his parents for the fun they had filling out the name on his birth certificate) and some other prof types will assist Special K.
Well, folks, it was a good run, but now it's over. Once would-be Illini learn that there is a group of dim but well-meaning sandal-wearers (middle-aged white guys from somewhere else, in the case of Kaufman) who want to dictate the "right" way to celebrate Native American culture to the less enlightened, well, those guys and gals will want to take their ball somewhere else.
Ok, they won't take it to North Dakota (Fighting Sioux and LOTS of Native American names plastered on everything from roads to coffee mugs); or Bradley (oh, wait, I think they are changing their name to the Bradley Brave (no 'S'), so maybe they're OK now).
Let's see, you're 17 or 18, and you have a chance to play football or basketball at the University of Illinois. You're all set to put your John Henry on your national letter of intent, but then pause, noticing the large, impressive envelope from the school of your choice. You open it, and your worst fears are confirmed -- that WAS a white kid doing the halftime performance at the football game that you attended last weekend!
Shocked and horrified, you put down the pen. You'll have to tell your parents.
"Mom?. . . Dad? . . . I . . . I'm not going to Illinois."
Why not, son? What's happened?
"They . . . discriminate against . . . Native Americans. They have this Chief symbol thing . . . something about tribes that used to live in IIlinois. They've been doing it for 80 years. But now some people say it's wrong, but they won't stop. It's horrible."
Son, those must be some bad, ugly people over there in Urbana-Champaign (or is it Champaign-Urbana?). If they hate Indians so much, I bet they'll hate you too. Damn hillbillies. I think you should look at a different school. How 'bout Indiana? They don't have an offensive mascot, and guess what, their coach is a real Indian!
"Good thinking, Dad. Cuz' that's what I really care about. Not the school,or the coaches, or the microbiology department (although I hear there are some very caring and sensitive professors), the practice facilities, or the quality of the athletic programs. Nope, what I care about is going to a school where no one has to be offended."
That's the spirit, Jimmy!
One question, though, Dad. Isn't "Indiana" derived from the fact that Native Americans lived there? Aren't they just as bad as Illinois?
No, son, because they don't even try to remember the Indian culture. They are progressive and have moved on to the "Hoosier" as their great symbol.
Oh, I get it. Since no one knows what it is, no one can be offended by it. That's smart. And progressive. AND they are in the same state as NCAA headquarters, where they are trying to put a stop to ugly racism like Chief IIliniwek. I want to go to school there. One last thing, though, Dad.
Yes, son.
Do they still . . . smoke . . . in Indiana?
Now that wacky and irrepressible prof Stephen Kaufman has gone and done it! He has upped the ante and will really put the screws to the University of Illinois administration by {gulp} sending out mailers to prospective athletes! News-Gazette (September 21, 206)
The mailers (24 pages strong!) will "inform potential student athletes of the racial discrimination and stereotyping the university chooses to maintain." U of I professor Phillip Phillips (still a bit pissed at his parents for the fun they had filling out the name on his birth certificate) and some other prof types will assist Special K.
Well, folks, it was a good run, but now it's over. Once would-be Illini learn that there is a group of dim but well-meaning sandal-wearers (middle-aged white guys from somewhere else, in the case of Kaufman) who want to dictate the "right" way to celebrate Native American culture to the less enlightened, well, those guys and gals will want to take their ball somewhere else.
Ok, they won't take it to North Dakota (Fighting Sioux and LOTS of Native American names plastered on everything from roads to coffee mugs); or Bradley (oh, wait, I think they are changing their name to the Bradley Brave (no 'S'), so maybe they're OK now).
Let's see, you're 17 or 18, and you have a chance to play football or basketball at the University of Illinois. You're all set to put your John Henry on your national letter of intent, but then pause, noticing the large, impressive envelope from the school of your choice. You open it, and your worst fears are confirmed -- that WAS a white kid doing the halftime performance at the football game that you attended last weekend!
Shocked and horrified, you put down the pen. You'll have to tell your parents.
"Mom?. . . Dad? . . . I . . . I'm not going to Illinois."
Why not, son? What's happened?
"They . . . discriminate against . . . Native Americans. They have this Chief symbol thing . . . something about tribes that used to live in IIlinois. They've been doing it for 80 years. But now some people say it's wrong, but they won't stop. It's horrible."
Son, those must be some bad, ugly people over there in Urbana-Champaign (or is it Champaign-Urbana?). If they hate Indians so much, I bet they'll hate you too. Damn hillbillies. I think you should look at a different school. How 'bout Indiana? They don't have an offensive mascot, and guess what, their coach is a real Indian!
"Good thinking, Dad. Cuz' that's what I really care about. Not the school,or the coaches, or the microbiology department (although I hear there are some very caring and sensitive professors), the practice facilities, or the quality of the athletic programs. Nope, what I care about is going to a school where no one has to be offended."
That's the spirit, Jimmy!
One question, though, Dad. Isn't "Indiana" derived from the fact that Native Americans lived there? Aren't they just as bad as Illinois?
No, son, because they don't even try to remember the Indian culture. They are progressive and have moved on to the "Hoosier" as their great symbol.
Oh, I get it. Since no one knows what it is, no one can be offended by it. That's smart. And progressive. AND they are in the same state as NCAA headquarters, where they are trying to put a stop to ugly racism like Chief IIliniwek. I want to go to school there. One last thing, though, Dad.
Yes, son.
Do they still . . . smoke . . . in Indiana?
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
