Wed, May 10, 2006
Alienating His Base—9:47 AM
President Bush has finally lost touch with the one group he could always count on: crazy, stupid psychos who are mindlessly determined to support him no matter what.
A new poll conducted by CBS and The New York Times gives him a 31% overall approval rating, but also splits up his approval based on various issues. On the fuel price issue alone, his approval dips below the 27% Crazification Factor which has normally been there to protect him.
So, it's pretty clear. We'll continue to love you if you listen to our phone calls, imprison our neighbors, and kill our kids – but we draw a line when the gas for our Excursion costs more than $125 a tank.
Keep it in mind, Bush. 87% of us demand satisfaction!
Joe Mulder — Wed, 5/10/06 2:04pm
Fine, but read this.
Would have been a better article if it'd had some numbers in it, but, still.
Bee Boy — Wed, 5/10/06 4:12pm
Are you saying you're in the 13% here? Because, vote for Bush if you want, but siding with the oil companies? That's a new low.
Seriously, this guy claims "multiple investigations" into the so-called baseless conspiracy theory that oil companies are price-gouging? When? Name a few – wouldn't that make your article sound better? Besides, I'd want to know why my tax dollars were spent investigating foil-hat crackpot theories instead of killing towel-heads. And A&P really posted higher profits in the 1920s than Exxon does today? Then why was Exxon's 2005 third quarter widely reported as the most profitable of any company in US history? I know the media operates as a pack and reports lies without checking, but really? Did everyone fail to get their facts straight?
It's not just that this would've been a better article with some numbers (other than, of course, "mega-billion"). Numbers would've been the only way to add any meaning whatsoever. Without them, this is all just conjecture. And that's because the actual numbers wouldn't have supported the fallacious logic that holds this whole dopey article together. Which is no more nor less fallacious than the opposing argument: that we're being told fuel prices are up because crude oil prices are up, yet oil companies are posting record profits and paying extravagant executive salaries. No more nor less fallacious – but which one feels right?
The CBS/NYT poll says nothing about the cause of rising fuel prices, or what Bush should be doing to fix it, if anything. (Windfall profits tax, "play politics with the SPR," etc.) All it says is that 87% of people think Bush could be doing more about the problem. And that's the key. We all know facts are irrelevant to the discussion. If facts played a part, the president would have been out on his ass years ago.
Joe Mulder — Wed, 5/10/06 5:30pm
Well, that's why I wanted some.
Joe Mulder — Wed, 5/10/06 7:06pm
Hey! I checked, and this was in terms of dollars, not percentage. For a publicly traded company.
Fine, yes, touche. I wish there were any way I could argue about this, from either side of the aisle.
Bee Boy — Wed, 5/10/06 9:54pm
Me too! This is the beauty of onebee – reaching across the aisle to join hands in agreement. It's impossible to dispute the beauty of numbers – and, to a greater extent, NUMB3RS.
"Holly" — Wed, 5/10/06 11:40pm
It's also impossible to dispute that Bee Boy's ringing final declaration in this conversation makes anything that follows anti-climatic, but I enjoy logging onto this site and boring people.
Thing is, I had almost this exact conversation with my uncle last night, which is important because he was a double major in journalism and economics and worked as (you guessed it) an economics reporter for years. He's also a staunch Republican, but a staunch anti-Bush Republican (unlike my other uncle, who is a Hannity-lovin' pro-Bush Republican AND, much worse, who said jovially yet without any irony whatsoever at a recent family gathering that this country's problems would be solved if we could round up and, yes, execute all Democrats.) ...but back to my sane uncle.
He said that oil company profits are so high right now because the gasoline that they're currently selling comes from oil that they bought, or negotiated for, back when oil cost a lot less on the world market, as well as from oil from their own sources (their own Gulf of Mexico rigs and things). Gas prices are already high despite this because these companies are now having to anticipate buying future oil at consistantly higher costs. Gas prices are also already high because, as my uncle rather sternly reminded me, it's a free market and they're allowed to make as much profit as they can... while they can. He says that, if they suddenly decided to become altruistic good citizens, cut their prices, and ditch their spectacular profits for something a lot more modest, prices would still go down only about 8 cents per gallon just because, indeed, oil prices are now skyrocketing and nobody thinks they're going to plummet again. This is our future, like it or not.
Finally, he stressed that it's actually a good thing for the country that prices are going up, because for the first time people are getting serious about conservation and alternate fuels. (I mentioned that I'd been serious about such things since 4th grade, when I got seriously really scared about no more oil, ozone layer, landfill space, etc., and wrote to President Reagan about it, but he wasn't as impressed as I'd hoped. "He" meaning either President Reagan or my uncle, take your pick.)
My uncle continued that no amount of new refineries or Alaskan drilling can make any significant dent in the world's oil/gas supply or prices, both because that supply is fundamentally limited by the ol' Intelligent Designer and because that limited supply is getting pinched more than ever by new markets (China and India). So it's past time for us to be thinking about alternatives to oil, and taking action on those with our great American ingenuity and initiative, so that when the oil does run out, or prices do get too high, our companies are the ones selling the next generation of technology to the world. (Otherwise China is going to be selling those products to us, along with everything else we already use in our daily lives.) He basically says that the sooner we ditch our dependence on oil, the better.
Anyway, I thought it was all very reasonable, and am thus sharing it in this most reasonable of forums.
"Holly" — Wed, 5/10/06 11:58pm
P.S. This uncle is also my Mulder-esque football fan uncle, and when I asked him about recent uniform changes (http://athleticreporter.blogspot.com/), he said that the ones with the different-colored sleeves (http://www.bevosports.com/images/vick_fugly.jpg) are definitely "pretty weird" and all he can hope for, when one of his teams shows up wearing them, is that their opponents will be so distracted by the weirdness that they'll screw up. But he didn't sound very optimistic.
Bee Boy — Thu, 5/11/06 12:15am
Great, Holly. Thanks a lot. Now I'm so BORED! ;-)
Good point! I kept meaning to mention that. Maybe that puts me in the 13% after all. Maybe that's the entire 13% – people who are delighted with Bush's approach, because "fucking it up" (his approach to most everything) is the most direct line to the market tipping in the direction of conservation, etc. (Although I'd like to see specifics on exactly how many people are actually getting serious.)
I keep remembering Clinton on Letterman a few years ago, talking about this, specifically the hydrogen issue. He said he'd spoken in front of a giant group of oil magnates and he said, "You guys could take all the profit you have now and invest it in the refining and distribution infrastructure for hydrogen fuel, and then when the time comes, that investment will pay off hugely. You'll already be set up, and you'll be making ten times the profits you are now."
And they all said, "No. We'd rather have the money now."
It's the same problem in Hollywood: every decision is motivated by fear and short-term thinking. If and when that hazy, hydrogen-fueled future arrives, all those executives will be retired or running other companies. Their only concern is maximizing today's returns.
"Holly" — Thu, 5/11/06 12:09pm
There was a big thing on Marketplace on NPR a month or two ago about how China is working steadily toward hydrogen tech and other alternative fuels. They're still probably years away, but apparently they have a dedicated focus on it, specifically because they would obviously love to be the world leaders in that area when the time comes. I believe that it's probably a good thing if the world economy evens out the divides between rich and poor – if the American standard of living has to decrease somewhat as that of other countries rises. But I find it unnerving to think that, in my lifetime, the economic balance of power could shift quite radically to China/India, leaving us US citizens scrambling to find the money to buy their products while our quality of life declines significantly. I don't in the least begrudge every person in the world a lifestyle of moderate affluence, obviously, and I hope that's what happens rather than something more catastrophic, but I confess it scares me to think of the world's oil economy collapsing and the US collapsing right along with it because we didn't bother with such things as, y'know, foresight.
You're totally right about these companies (and, frankly, Americans generally) being too focused on the here-and-now. I saw a documentary in which they interviewed criminals who were about to be paroled, and the interviews asked questions like, "If you start dealing drugs again, what do you think will happen?" and these people said, "I could get some money, I guess," and the interviewer said, "Yes, and what else? ...Try to imagine... What if your parole officer finds out?" and they thought that over really carefully and said, "I guess I'd come back here," and then got really on board with the idea of not dealing drugs anymore. I mean, okay, obviously not the brightest people on the planet, but also, these were people who had simply never been TAUGHT the skill of anticipating future events and consequences and planning for them. They weren't good at critical thinking, at long-term planning for a positive outcome. I think those are skills CAN be taught no matter what a person's intellect, but they just aren't. (Standardized test scores, obviously, being vastly more important.)
And somehow that documentary reminds me very much of this oil situation today. "I could get some money, I guess..."
(I would like to add that, every time I accidentally wind up driving home at 5:30 instead of 5 or 6, I'm always really annoyed, because for some reason Marketplace just annoys me on principle. I'm not sure why. Obviously, I am engaged by its programming to the extent that I remember it several months later, but I still have this profound yet irrational annoyance about it. Sometimes I deliberately time things to avoid it. For that, I use the critical thinking and planning skills I was taught.)
Joe Mulder — Thu, 5/11/06 1:19pm
Such good stuff. Such good, good stuff.
It would be nice if we could do something about alternative fuel or even, in the mean time, decent public transportation. I would certainly take public transportation if it were even 1/2 as easy as driving to work. You'd think Los Angeles would figure this out, speaking of not looking to the future and seeing that might happen (you guys will be shocked to hear that the 405 isn't getting any less crowded). I keep waiting for the local office-holders (I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure most of the elected officials at the local Los Angeles level are white Republicans, right?) to do something (and not the crappy subway system we have now that doesn't go anywhere anyone would want to go and stops running at like 10:30; I mean actually something) about it.
I mean, why not have shuttle buses you can catch to get to your closest subway station (which subay, in a perfect world, you could take to West LA or Santa Monica or anywhere north of LAX, east of downtown and south of Wilshire. Why have any bus on city streets that's not electric (now, obviously someone somewhere has thought of that, and obviously there's a reason, but I'm just spitballin' here).
Anyway. I think that there is a lot more responsibility incumbent upon city governments to help with this "addiction to oil" problem (which is a real problem; I probably shouldn't even have put the phrase in quotes, in fact, I take it back). Not more than is incumbent on anybody else, I mean, but more than is usually thought of. Probably.
So.
And, also, because it doesn't get said enough:
"Krumholtz... (sigh)."
"Holly" — Thu, 5/11/06 6:01pm
You're absolutely right about public transportation. Having now lived in a place served by an excellent and expanding network of bus routes and light rail, I appreciate how it COULD be in LA. I'm sure I've heard politicians there talk in an inspirational manner about making it a big priority, but nothing much gets done. Except that glitzy subway station in Hollywood. Can't argue with that. Even though I never once found a reason to use it despite living a mile away.
"Holly" — Thu, 5/11/06 6:02pm
Wow, am I procrastinating on a final paper or WHAT? Look at all the words I've posted here in the last 24 hours. No doubt I'll be back for more in a little while...
Joe Mulder — Thu, 5/11/06 6:15pm
Ha! Just when someone wants to do some good work with alternative energy, the environmentalists object because some pwetty widdle birdies might get hurt.
I am not making this up: one concern is that wind turbines could kill "countless rare birds that migrate through the area each year..."
Again, just so you can savor it: "countless rare birds."
Countless.
Rare.
My side wins! Yay!
AC — Thu, 5/11/06 8:21pm
One word: Monrails.
Bee Boy — Thu, 5/11/06 8:39pm
One correctly spelled word: Monorails.
;-)
PS - The ring came off my pudding can...
Joe Mulder — Thu, 5/11/06 10:13pm
Take my penknife, my good man!
AC — Fri, 5/12/06 2:12am
No, I meant monrails, the bastard cousin of those worlds fair wonders of the past.
At least that's what we called the one at the Great State Fair of Oklahoma– so named because every year, without fail, it would either jump it's track or become hopelessly lodged and unable to move. After several hours, the official Great State Fair Cherry Picker Truck would rescue the suffocating passengers.
Ugh. Why don't you add a spell check to the new features list for the next release of the onebee comment tool.
AC — Fri, 5/12/06 2:13am
I can't resist:
Is there a chance the track could bend??
Bee Boy — Fri, 5/12/06 8:38am
Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
"Holly" — Fri, 5/12/06 4:56pm
(I call the big one Bitey.)
Bee Boy — Mon, 5/15/06 11:07am
So, Holly – next time your uncle is up for a big discussion, I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on why America has remained an economic superpower for as long as it has. I mean, obviously it's not just democracy and freedom, because a few other places have that. I'm sure a large part of it is the military and economic advantage we've had – it takes a long time to burn though all that. But I'm betting it also has something to do with sound leadership in terms of economic and foreign policy. It seems like you'd have to be constantly adjusting in order to stay on top, and that would require a steady stewardship of fiscal policy at home as well as frequent collaboration with foreign leaders to nurture relationships and alliances, keep markets open, etc.
Is this basically right? Is he worried about the next 30 years?