Sarah Palin is THIS Close September 22, 2008

Actuarial results are in.  Just so we’re all clear on this: given John McCain’s age and health history, the odds that he will die in office are 1 in 3.

Okay, Republicans: how certain are you that Sarah Palin’s ready?

Sarah Palin: Seriously? September 12, 2008

I just finished watching Sarah Palin’s first public interview, with Charles Gibson.  My reaction?  Wow.  This is the GOP’s choice for vice president of the United States?  Seriously?

I’m concerned about a few things from the interview.  To wit:

1. Governor Palin suggested, with a straight face, that the fact that Russia is a neighbor to Alaska qualifies as foreign policy experience.  “You know, you can actually see Russia (from Alaska,)” she stated, as though that meant something.  In reality, Governor Palin received her first-ever passport last year, and aside from a recent trip to Kuwait and Germany to visit troops, she admits that her travels outside of the U.S. have consisted of “Canada…and Mexico.”  In fact, Governor Palin has only rarely left Alaska in her lifetime.  So we’re left with these nuggets: (a) She not only doesn’t know foreign policy…she doesn’t even really know that much about the lower 48 states; and (b) at one of the most perilous foreign policy times in our nation’s history, we could be handing the keys (remember, McCain is 72 and has had six cancer surgeries) over to a woman who got her first passport last year.
2. Mr. Gibson asked Mrs. Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine.  Her answer(s) stunned me.  I want to make this clear: I knew exactly what he was talking about, and Sarah Palin did not.  She, in fact, had no idea.  This frightened me beyond words to describe it.
3. Her obviously coached answer to the question of whether she would support an Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear facility (“we can’t second-guess the Israeli government,” stated in precisely the same way three different times as Gibson attempted to extract a straight answer) was shocking.  Was that a yes?  Well, yes it was, only she refused to say it directly.
4. I’m just going to say it, because… what the heck, nothing I say actually matters: I know a lot of people — and I mean, a lot of people – who are smarter than Sarah Palin.  Holy smokes, I was expecting a lot more than what I saw.  She was way, way over her head.
5. I think it’s clear that McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” has officially derailed.  This was an incredibly evasive interview.
6. In the era of YouTube, I wonder if people will get away with denials of what they clearly said.  Sarah Palin will certainly put that to the test.  Mrs. Palin tried to evade her clear statement (made only a couple of months ago in her old church) that our troops in Iraq were “on a task from God” by evoking Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that what she really meant was that we have to pray that we’re on God’s side.  She also claimed that she’s always said that man had something to do with global warming.  This is a bit at odds with… well, with what she’s actually said.  As recently August 29, she said of global warming, “Well, I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”  I don’t know… did I misread that?  Is it even possible to misread it?
7. Similarly, with respect to the famous Bridge to Nowhere: Oh…my…gosh.  Since being named as McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin has given seven speeches.  Exactly seven times, she has parroted exactly the same words: “We said ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to that Bridge to Nowhere.”  It has now been conclusively demonstrated that she said no such thing.  She in fact supported the Bridge to Nowhere, both in her campaign for the governorship, and as governor, right up until the time that Congress pulled the plug on that money.  There is no denying this.  Here is what she said about that:

I think the thing I’m most offended by is not in that clip: her lame attempt to deny that she was wearing a t-shirt supporting the bridge in 2006: “Well, I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge.”  What?  Is this a denial?  What?

If that interview doesn’t hurt Sarah Palin, nothing will.  She made one thing abundantly clear: she is a very, very long way away from being ready to be President.  Here’s hoping that the distance between her and that office is more than one man’s heartbeat.

Trouble in Demo Paradise September 4, 2008

Let’s not mince words: this is a year that the Democrats should win the White House.  The White House is currently occupied by a President about whom the relevant question is: “Bad President, or the worst President ever?  John McCain, while a fine man, is not a transcendent politician.  He’s more than a little dull, looks ill at ease almost all the time, and his positions mirror President Bush’s far too closely for most people’s comfort.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama is an unbelievably talented political figure.  Politically he has, to use James Carville’s metaphor, “a major-league fastball.”  A Democratic victory should be a cakewalk.

And yet: it might not happen.  A few reasons:

1. Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park in her convention speech.  In truth, I thought the beginning was over-folksy and the middle and end were lightweight with respect to policy.  I also thought that some of it was outright misleading. (Who believes that a McCain/Palin administration will really explore alternate energy sources?  Anyone?  Anyone?)  Even so: her speech was energetic and aggressive and it absolutely rocked the convention.  The Republican party machine, always formidable, has awakened from their slumber.
2. In any case, Palin was an inspired choice, for several reasons: (a) it makes Obama’s choice of Biden seem safe and pedestrian.  You can almost hear people saying: This is our big reformer?  (b) Thus, it re-awakens McCain’s old (and more palatable) maverick image.  Despite Mrs. Palin’s positions at the extreme right edge of the world, the pure gutsiness of naming her as his VP choice almost instantly threw McCain back toward the electable center, where he used to reside comfortably.  (c) While it may be a ham-handed play for disaffected Hillary Democrats and Independents, it is nevertheless a play.  The Democrat’s play was to have Hillary fairly beg them not to do what they clearly wanted to do.  While most who voted for Hillary will get back in the Democratic line, there are probably something like 1 or 2 percentage points, nationwide, who are wavering.  Remember: 62 million people voted for Pres. Bush in 2004.  One or two million of the 18 million people who voted for Hillary is a huge demographic.  (d) Sarah Palin’s primary weakness, that of inexperience, is just not in play in this election.  Seriously: though I love Obama, what criticism can I make about Palin’s experience?  I can’t, right?  Her line in the convention about her experience as a mayor (“it’s sort of like being a community organizer, except with actual responsibilities”) was an absolute gem.
3. Obama has still been unwilling to fight.  There is an awful lot to worry about with John McCain, and even more with Sarah Palin (ties to the separatist Alaskan Independence Party?  Seriously?).  But while Mrs. Palin showed up with teeth bared, Obama and Biden haven’t even loosened their ties.
4. Sorry, but you’ve got to wonder: Does McCain, the white male, simply start this election with a lead of x points?  There is still a rural south, and it is still… well, the rural south.  Even in the supposedly enlightened northeast, exit polls in the primaries suggested that almost ten percent of white men admitted that they have difficulty voting for a black man.  That’s in the northeast.  And that’s the ones who would admit it.
5. Remarkably, America apparently mistrusts smart people.  Sarah Palin, particularly, and to a lesser extent John McCain are somehow making being the editor of the Harvard Law Review a liability.  And people are buying this, in droves.  He’s not smart and capable — he’s elitist.  She’s not a pedestrian intellect — she’s one of us, a “hockey mom.”  I tip my hat to the Republicans for seeing this very interesting, and apparently very strong, demographic.

Point 4 above might very well be the source of the “missing ten-point lead” for Obama.  And given that this may very well be an uphill battle for him to begin with, he can ill afford to lose a point here and a point there, as is apparently happening before his eyes.

I Hate Being Lied To September 2, 2008

I’ve gone in the last few weeks from enthusiasm for Barack Obama to that, plus a slow burn about some McCainian offenses, and now to fury at Republicans.  Not that I dislike them as people or anything, but the Republican leadership has now gone right past innuendo and shading of the truth, and straight to outright lies.  Bending the truth to fit your worldview is par for the course.  Lying?  ENOUGH!!

Where I’m stuck now, is the whole hullaballoo over opening up more of our coastline for drilling.  The Republicans have now gotten very direct, asserting that Democratic tree-hugging and foot-dragging is responsible for our spiraling gas prices.  If only they’d stop being so stubborn and let us drill, all would be well.

Which is an outright lie.  Every single innuendo, every thought, every bit of it.  The facts, which are not even in dispute by the current Energy Information Administration, are as follows:

1. Currently, oil companies have access to 34 billion gallons of oil that they have not developed.  If we assume that California continues to block drilling off of its coast (a safe assumption given that both the Republican governor and the majority Democratic party support the ban), an end to the federal moratorium would add only another 8 billion barrels.
2. Those 8 billion barrels would, at best, start to trickle in starting in about 2020.  It works like this: you get a lease, and then you wait years for drilling equipment, which is in short supply.  Then you spend a long time on seismic analysis, since the cost of a dry hole is massive (you want to be absolutely certain you’re drilling in the right place).  You drill exploratory wells.  About five years after all of that, if you haven’t missed anywhere, you start producing oil in quantity.
3. Those wells would likely produce less than 100,000 barrels per day.  This is according to the EIA, with one caveat: their analysis, which suggests that the number would be more like 150,000 barrels if the federal ban were lifted, makes the absolutely incorrect assumption that California lifts its own ban as well.  Won’t happen, and California provides about 10 billion of the 18 billion barrels they are using in that analysis.  So, figure something like (150,000 x (8/18)) = roughly 67,000 barrels per day, for a reasonable assumption.
4. Even that small number assumes that every state but California aggressively allowed drilling off of their coasts.  Think Florida will fall in line easily?
5. For reference, the Saudis announced they would produce another 500,000 barrels per day by the end of this year, and it has not moved gas prices even a blip.

And yet.  Senator McCain was recently quoted saying: “Tomorrow I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration.  This and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.”

Now, he has to know that that’s not true.  It couldn’t possibly make any difference at all for many years, and even then it’s a drop in the ocean.  It sounds good to Americans who are sweating out their latest fillup at the pump, but it’s not true.

So, why am I furious?  Because I’m being lied to, that’s why.

What I Wonder About Sarah Palin September 2, 2008

I like a lot about Sarah Palin.  She is unbelievably popular as governor of Alaska.  She seems devoted and committed and honest and decent.  She absolutely deserves her “rising star” status.  Heck, she even attended the University of Idaho in my hometown.

I sort of hate to ask this question, and I wouldn’t do it if I thought that I had a broad reading audience. I want to be clear, before I ask it, that I would ask the same thing if a Democrat were caught in the same pickle she has been caught in, in her first week.

It’s this: What kind of insane level of ambition do you have to have, if you would actually say “yes” to an offer to be your party’s vice presidential nominee knowing that in so doing, you would “out” your own teenage daughter’s pregnancy to the entire nation and cause her that embarrassment?

What ever happened to, “No thanks.  This just isn’t a good time for me to accept.”?

I wish no ill on Sarah Palin, and certainly not on her daughter.  We should deal with this news like decent and caring adults.  I don’t think having a pregnant teenage daughter is any reflection on Gov. Palin’s parenting.  It might, though, reflect on her judgment.  Sarah, Sarah, Sarah: Why did you do this?

“How can you be a Democrat?” September 1, 2008

I’m asked the question above all the time.  It’s understandable, at least a little.  I’m Mormon, after all, and there are some Mormons (more than you’d think) who believe that being Democrat and being Mormon do not mix.  According to the Washington Post, 76 percent of Mormons who voted in 2004 cast their ballots for President Bush.  It’s a heavily Republican demographic.

A lot of Republican positions on the issues line up pretty well with what Mormons are taught, too: Republicans tend to be pro-life, at least more so than the Democrats.  Mormons are specifically taught to oppose gay marriage (although church positions lean toward supporting equal rights for same-sex unions).  And… no, wait, that’s about it.

If you viewed the world through the two lenses of abortion and gay marriage, then most Mormons really should be Republican.  But if you think that there might be other important issues in the world, there might be some elephants in the room.  To wit:

The Economy.  There is no LDS position or doctrine that would automatically dictate support for Republican trickle-down economics, unless you really want to torture Book of Mormon governments to the point of screaming.  I don’t think, as an economic theory, it’s necessarily evil, but it isn’t obvious that it’s in line with LDS doctrine, either.

In fact, a Mormon might be very concerned about the current state of our economy: The Book of Mormon points over and over again to civilizations that fail at about the time a yawning gap is created between the haves and the have-nots.

When all is right with the world, we have a situation like that described in Alma chapter 1: “…they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor and the needy, to the sick and the afflicted…”, and later: “they did not send away any that were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished, and they did not set their hearts upon riches, therefore they were liberal to all.”

A concern for the needs of the poor is fundamental to the religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  It just is.

War.  Nothing puzzles me more than a hawkish Mormon.  Nothing.  I think I understand the experiments we’ll perform in the Large Hadron Supercollider better than I understand that.  I cannot fathom how it is that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can seem not only to accept war, but to actually seem to want it.

The position of the LDS church is to support governments (“we believe in being subjects to kings, rulers, magistrates…”, etc., from the LDS Articles of Faith), but it is also to promote peace.  We are fundamentally opposed to war.  We absolutely view it as a course of last resort.  It can be argued, further, that according to the Book of Mormon justifiable war is only one that defends life and liberty.  This is the doctrine.

The evidence suggests that the administration (to be fair, it seems more like Dick Cheney than it does George Bush) at least overstated its case for war with Iraq, and at most outright fabricated its rationale.  For an administration to be that cavalier — about war, is an abuse worse than the scandals of Watergate or Monica Lewinsky, and it should have decent, peace-loving Mormons feeling cheated and infuriated.

Unfortunately, John McCain seems somewhere to the right of George Bush on the subject of war (you’d think there wasn’t room there, but there is).  He was on a naval ship just days after the horror of 9/11, before the first thoughts of Iraq invasions had formed, and he was videotaped saying, “Next stop, Baghdad,” with a disturbing grin on his face.

Support for war with Afghanistan is a much more defensible position for a Mormon.  The United States was attacked, and the epicenter of our attackers’ operations was Afghanistan.  Their presence was accepted and tolerated by the then-Afghan government.  It made perfect sense to go to Afghanistan to protect our liberty and our way of life.

This is where it got slippery: the suggestion that we had every right to go to the Middle East to protect our country from future attack is both absolutely correct, and vastly too broad.  We have every right to protect ourselves.  That is the key.  While Afghanistan had (essentially) attacked us, Iraq had (to quote Thomas Jefferson) “neither picked my pocket nor broken my leg.”  We were not protecting ourselves when we entered Iraq.

Given that we’re in a war, though, one can reasonably ask: what do we do now?  While a huge percentage of LDS people believe with Republicans that we should “stay the course” and “finish the job,” this is purely a matter of policy.  It is equally valid to believe that we should pull out immediately, that we should set a timetable for measured withdrawal, or that we should stay the course.  I’m in the middle.  You can be anywhere on that continuum, and it’s okay with me.

Torture.  This is, I guess, not a strictly partisan issue.  I presume that most Republicans would join most Democrats in decrying torture in all but the most clear and present dangers, and maybe not even then.  On the other hand, it was a Republican administration, and one with the barest of mandates (if they had one at all), that sought justification to torture prisoners.  And it’s simply true that the hue and cry from the right was not as thunderous as I would have expected.

It should be patently obvious that the LDS church categorically decries torture of any kind.  I mean, sheesh: that’s just insane.

Global Warming and Ecology.  Mormons believe that God gave the earth to Man with a charge that included “take care of it.”  The earth is to be “beautifi(ed) and replenish(ed).”  We are to be stewards of it, not slaveowners.  This is inarguably LDS doctrine.

Does this mean that a Mormon cannot justifiably support drilling in ANWR?  Of course not.  But it means that he or she should be concerned with the environmental impact of such an action, both from the perspective of ANWR itself, and also from the global perspective of the impact of burning fossil fuels.  It seems self-evident that Mormons should at least give serious thought to an energy policy that moves us away from heavy dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise.

I have heard active LDS members talk as though ecological concern is soft-headed and purely liberal.  It is neither, and any member of the church who cannot put their ecological position in terms of good stewardship of the earth has some explaining to do.

Immigration.  We would do well to acknowledge that immigration is a thorny problem, with “competing goods.”  Respect for the rule of law, on the one hand, implies that we should “throw the bums out.”  But basic human kindness, not to mention principles such as forgiveness and respect for families, suggests that some softer landing might be sought.

At some level, your position on immigration may depend on your perspective as to just who these people are.  If you believe that illegal immigrants tend to be law-breaking, gang-banging hoodlums who drain our resources, you’ll lean toward a conservative view of immigration.  If you believe that they are mostly hardworking people trying to better their lives and the lives of their children, you might be a little “softer” on the topic.

I would offer only the following, in response to the “law-breaker” charge: Yes.  They’ve broken the law.  But let’s not go overboard: crossing a border without proper papers isn’t murder.  It isn’t even petty theft, frankly.  And in any case, my experience here in California is that the vast majority of these people are of the “trying to better their lives” variety.

The LDS church position straddles the fence a bit on this one: (1) We respect the rule of law, and we would expect an immigrant to this or any other country to get proper documentation to do that.  (2) We acknowledge that there are millions of immigrants in the country without documentation, and we would expect them to be treated with dignity and respect.  As a practical matter, we operate on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy within our wards and branches.  We don’t actively try to get people deported, but at the same time we don’t take any action that could be deemed as “aiding and abetting.”

Other issues, such as healthcare, Social Security, and the like, really don’t have a corresponding LDS position that could be pinpointed with any accuracy.

What I’ve tried to show here is this: that aside from the positions on abortion and gay marriage, it is perhaps more fitting for a Mormon to be Democrat than it is for them to be Republican.  (And I wonder if the same couldn’t be said for Christians generally?)

Obama’s Berlin Speech July 25, 2008

Just because, you know, you have to see it.  This gave me hope (and chills):

Barack Obama’s Berlin speech, part one:

Part Two:

And the final part:

Of course… of course, conservative political commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly tore into Obama.  He is “arrogant” (Beck) for giving the speech in the first place.  On O’Reilly’s program, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham actually made fun of the notion that having a President who is popular overseas is a good thing.  Predictably, Limbaugh (a buffoon if ever there was one) seized on Obama’s even-handed confession of America’s imperfection not as a hand reaching out in peace, but as a horrifying cave-in to the Germans.

A response:

1. Obama is being accused of arrogance… by Glenn Beck?
2. Nothing could be more obvious, Ms. Ingraham, than the incredible advantage it would be to us (in terms of national security, most of all) to have a president who is popular in places like Germany and the U.K. and Italy and the like.  It’s a little hard to miss this point, frankly: Strong allies good, weak allies bad.
3. Contemptuous, vainglorious unwillingness to admit to obvious flaws is not a path to cooperation and friendship, Mr. Limbaugh.  Humility and honesty will do the trick.  (I can understand how this point would be abstruse to Rush Limbaugh, though.)

Why, Exactly, is Obama not Ready as Commander-in-Chief? July 17, 2008

A recent Gallup poll highlighted some interesting things with respect to the country’s perception of Barack Obama’s readiness (or lack thereof) to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.  A few snippets:

• 80% of Americans feel that John McCain “can handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military.”  55% feel that Obama can handle them.
• This is split very starkly along party lines, at least for Obama: 77% of Democrats think he can, while 69% of Republicans think he cannot.  While only 26% of Republicans think that Sen. Obama can handle commander-in-chief responsiblities, 60% of Independents say he can.
• Things get murky when we start to ask a critical specific question of the actual job of the commander-in-chief: when asked which of the two candidates they would trust to make the decision about whether or not to send our troops into combat, it gets closer: 53% of adults say McCain, and 40% say Obama.  This is absolutely split along party lines: 87% of Republicans say McCain, while 67% of Democrats say they’d trust Obama.
• When you get even more specific and ask which of the two we’d prefer to make a decision about sending troops into Iran, you end up with a statistical dead heat.  In this case, Republicans prefer McCain by the same margin as before — 86% would prefer McCain in making that decision.  Both Independents and Democrats prefer Obama.

I’m in the Obama camp on this one (as I am on many things).  I feel much safer with Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, than I do with John McCain in the same chair.  I’ll give you a few reasons why:

• I cannot imagine the good reason to invade Iran right now.  To do this without provocation strikes me as an honest-to-goodness impeachable offense in a President.  Obama simply will not invade; McCain might.
• The Iraq war has been an unmitigated disaster since the famous declaration of victory by Pres. Bush.  John McCain intends to stay and “finish the job”; Barack Obama will turn our attention to fighting terrorists (which I support).
• They see the Iraq War differently, and Obama’s vision is right while McCain’s is wrong.  Obama sees our presence in Iraq as fundamentally mediating a civil war, all the while diverting our attention from a real and present danger in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  McCain sees Iraq as a central battleground in the war on terror, which it is most certainly not and never was.

I wonder, too, if John McCain’s exemplary military background creates a man who knows how to wage war, but who does not know how to wage today’s war.  I wonder, in fact, if his experience isn’t more of a hindrance than it is a help.

It’s not rhetoric: we really do have the finest military on the planet.  There is noplace on earth that we cannot invade if provoked, and there is no military who can stand up to ours, face to face, for more than a few months.  No one will engage with us in that way, because they know that they will get their a** kicked.

This overwhelming force is what McCain understands very, very well.  He knows how to wield it better than Barack Obama does.  But it’s not even half of the story anymore.

This is what we did in Iraq, after all: we blew into the country, within a few days we so completely overwhelmed the Iraqi military that they completely fell apart, and then…

Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it?  Then what?  This is the point: Having overwhelmed an opponent, George Bush and Dick Cheney and John McCain have no idea what to do next. They can win wars.  What they cannot do, is the more delicate task of winning transitions and winning peace.

Sen. McCain supported the surge in Iraq, while Obama did not.  We hear a lot about the surge “working,” and if that means that American casualties are down, then I could not be happier about that.  But I wonder if we know what “working” really will mean.  What I worry about is this: is overwhelming an opponent all we know how to do? Is the surge simply re-overwhelming Iraq, putting us right back where we started (meaning: not knowing what to do next)?  I fear that it is.

International security strategist Thomas Barnett gave a half-hour primer recently on the challenges of the new military, suggesting some changes along the way.  Click the link here to see the talk, which is intelligent and sensible and bracing in its straightforwardness.

Listen to it, and see if you agree: Barack Obama is more ready to follow something akin to Barnett’s proposals than John McCain is.  It’s new war versus cold war, and I want to be ready.

Enron Loophole Nonsense July 13, 2008

When I used to coach basketball teams, I rarely had a problem with the refs.  I used to say that I didn’t mind when a referee just didn’t see a play the same way I did, even if I knew he was wrong.  What would make me furious, though, was when a referee didn’t even know the rules.

I feel this way about the much-discussed “Enron loophole” that Congress wants to close.  Frankly, I don’t care whether they close it or not; I don’t think it will have much effect on gasoline prices either way.  What bothers me is: it seems like nobody in Washington grasps even the most basic principles of futures markets.

The Enron loophole refers to a bill passed eight years ago, largely at the behest of current McCain aide and former senator Phill Gramm, that exempts energy futures traders who place their trades electronically from U.S. government regulation.

I get on Republicans a lot, but the silliness of this one falls squarely in the laps of Democrats, who are up in arms of a sudden as gas prices have skyrocketed.  Looking for a scapegoat, they now point to “energy speculators.”  Listen to my own senator, Barbara Boxer of California, referring to the Farm Bill that seeks to close the Enron Loophole:

“This bill is really our best bet to deter unscrupulous traders from
manipulating energy prices and engaging in excessive speculation. This
has been a long, hard road – and this is a major legislative victory,” she says.

Sounds great.  Only, well… umm, there’s really no such thing as “speculation,” at least as I’d define it, in the oil futures market.

Commodities futures markets aren’t like the stock market at all, and I think that’s where Congress gets confused.  In the stock market, it is possible for everyone to win (in a bull market) or everyone to lose (in a bear market).  This is not possible in any commodities futures market.  In a futures market, investors do not actually buy oil or rice or oranges — they buy a contract on the price of those commodities, say, six months into the future.  So they’re not manipulating the actual price of the goods, since they don’t actually buy anything.

“But perhaps their ’speculations’ on the future price of the goods drive those prices,” you say.  Except… and this is where futures markets differ from the stock market… it is a matched market: for every single contract that says that oil will go up, there is another contract that says that oil will go down.  If you can’t get anyone to take your bet, there is no bet (no futures contract).

Can you see how it would be difficult to “speculate” (in the traditional sense) in the market, when you must find an opposite-minded taker for every speculation you might make?  It just doesn’t work like that, and it’s surprising when you see Sen. Boxer (and, to be fair, Sen. Obama) seem to completely misunderstand the workings of the system.

Something is driving up oil prices, to be sure.  And that something is: worldwide, people want more oil than we’re refining.  (And to be even-handed, I should note that Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain’s notion that we could drive prices down by drilling is equally stupid, since our refineries are running at capacity.  Let’s get this clear: drilling more oil in the U.S. will do nothing at all to increase our supply of refined gasoline, and therefore will have no effect on prices.  Period.)

Put simply, in 1999 we had a surplus of 5 million barrels per day of oil, on a total consumption of 76 million barrels per day.  Now our consumption has grown to 86 million barrels per day, and the surplus is 2 million.  (And it was noted in a recent Newsweek editorial that much of that 2 million is high-sulfur crude that won’t yield gasoline, anyway.)  Increasing demand.  Decreasing supply.  Anyone out there unclear on what that will do to prices?  Anyone?  (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

To quote an old comic strip character, Pogo the Possum, we have seen the enemy and he is us, at least the worldwide “us.”  Oil prices are not about some rogue speculators.  They’re about our insatiable need for oil.  Supply and demand.  Just what they taught you in high school econ class.