mtpolitics.net

Some Clarification. I Think.

November 4th, 2005 | by Craig |

I find it amusing that my detractors often charge me with being an ideologue or a blind Bush supporter with scant evidence to back up their assertions. For some, if I’m to the right of Stalin, I’m a partisan Republican Kool-Aid drinker.

Sorry to disappoint, but it just ain’t so.

Can you go back in the archives and glean my position on the deficit? How about Medicare? Social Security? How much do I donate to charity? Which charities do I donate to?

You can’t find it, because I don’t share it. All of that info is filed under Nunya. I find braggarts to be boors, so I try not to be either. (Alright, so I can be a boor at times. There, I said it.)

I grew up during the final years of the Cold War (which I consider to be WWIII). The doomsayers predicted that the Reagan presidency would culminate in the entire world becoming immolated in a nuclear fireball. Was I nervous about nuclear annihilation? Not particularly. With the US and USSR on opposite poles, I always knew that rationalism would prevail. Although Mutually Assured Destruction sounded like an insane premise to build a national defense on; it worked.

Further, I’ve always had a belief that people — the regular Joes of the world — really want the same things: to be left alone to make a living and raise their family in a manner they so choose. Fundamentally, there’s little difference between me and J. Random Citizen in Russia (or Romania, Bulgaria, Germany or wherever). The methods to get to that place may differ, but I truly believe that the destination is the same.

In 2000, I didn’t vote in the presidential election. To steal from Dennis Miller, the choice between Gore and Bush was like choosing between the 2 a.m. showing of Beastmaster 3 on Cinemax and the 2:30 a.m. showing of Beastmaster 4 on Showtime. (Or any movie they seem to show on the Sci-Fi channel on weekends.)

In 2004, I voted for Bush because I do believe that Iraq is a crucial battle in the war on terror. (Which is different from believing that “Saddam was behind 9/11.”) To think that Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism is akin to thinking that the Pope has nothing to do with Catholicism. Saddam had to go. In 1991 at the conclusion of Gulf I, the consensus among my friends and I was that pulling out at that time would be foolish, as we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. But Bush I listened to the hand-wringers at the UN and the Oil For Food Dollars for Dictators program was born.

And for the love of Pete, can we let the “Bush Lied” meme die already? There’s a good list of quotes from Democrats here about Saddam’s WMD’s, all of them sourced. If you repeat something enough times, it does not become true.

But that’s neither here nor there.

In recent events, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reinforced one of my core beliefs; namely that in the final analysis, only you can be responsible for you. I was utterly unsurprised by the blowback on the Bush administration, but here’s the thing: the results would have been the same under the Clinton administration, the Bush I administration, the Carter administration, etc. Why? Because the federal government was involved. Have you ever seen the federal government do anything quickly and efficiently?

Further, if the federal government is supposedly responsible for hurricane recovery, relief and preparation, why didn’t we see the same results in Texas, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama?

For those who are charging racism, guess what? There’s a higher percentage of blacks living in Mississippi than Louisiana. Logically, if the goal was to get rid of black people (or something like that), wouldn’t it have made more sense to focus on Mississippi?

Are we 100% where we need to be on race? No. WIll we ever get there? Not as long as there are people like David Duke and Jesse Jackson around. Simple as that.

I think the most intelligent commentary I’ve seen on the “race problem” came from Eddie Murphy in his White Like Eddie sketch.

Logic, people. Logic.

Speaking of logic, let’s have a look at the price of gas, shall we?

It’s interesting to note that people from right and left are accusing the oil companies of artificially inflating the price of gas at the pump. How, exactly do they manage that?

Let’s set the scene: Here are the CEO’s of the top three (for argument’s sake) oil companies at a top secret meeting to drive up the price of oil. EM sells 1000 gallons a day (for easy math), CP sells 500 and CN sells 100. While chomping on cigars, they decide that $3.00 a gallon would be a good price for gasoline.

Although it seems counterintuitive, demand for gasoline is actually elastic. In other words, a change in the price of gasoline does have an appreciable effect on demand.

So the big three raise the price and guess what? Demand drops. Now the company that sells 1000 gallons a day might not feel that pinch, but a company that only sells 100 gallons will. So now, the big company has maybe lost a little profit, but the little company has lost a lot more, proportionately speaking.

If you’re the little company, you need to get those profits back, and to do that, you need to sell more gasoline. So, guess what you do. You go behind the big company’s back and lower your price. Your share of the demand goes up, and now what does the big guy have to do?

Lower his prices to keep his share.

This doesn’t even take into account the effect that speculation has on gas prices. In September, I looked at the prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and I made a bet with my dad and my uncle that by October 15th, the price of gas would be between $2.45 and $2.55 a gallon. I missed the mark, but only by a couple of weeks. Hurricane Rita wasn’t even on the horizon when I made that bet, so that’s my excuse for missing the mark.

Further, even if they could increase their profits simply by raising prices, why stop at $3? Why not raise it to $4 or even $5?

Logic.

I don’t always like the results that logic gives me, but I find them hard to argue with.

Now since this post started out about me and some of what I actually believe, I think I’ll conclude on that note. In college, I participated in some psychology experiments, and had to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; a test that gives you a 4-letter code to determine your personality.

I have taken it numerous times over the years, and have always come up with the same result, and the description is pretty accurate.

I am an ENTP: Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving.

Here are the key bits from the page linked above:

Verbally as well as cerebrally quick, ENTPs enjoy arguing: for its own sake, and to show off their impressive verbal skills. They often have a perverse sense of humour, and play devil’s advocate regardless of consequence. They sometimes confuse, even hurt, those who cannot understand the concept of argument as a sport. (Some would no doubt argue the validity of the first phrase of this description, plus the emphasis is mine. –Ed.)

[. . .]

ENTPs are optimists. They tend to regard problems as personal challenges, and have little patience with those they consider wrong or unintelligent. However, they are often extremely genial and quite charming, when not being harassed by life in general.

[. . .]

Good at analysis, especially functional analysis, ENTPs have a tolerance for, and enjoyment of the complex. Enthusiastic, ENTPs are apt to express interest in everything, and thus unwittingly inspire others who find themselves caught up in an ENTP idea. The ENTP is the most reluctant of all types to do things in a traditional manner.

Anyway, now you know a little bit more about who I am and what I believe. Feel free to argue.