Sunday, August 03, 2008

Blaming the Democrats for high gasoline prices

The latest nonsense coming from the GOP is a lame attempt to blame Democrats for high gasoline prices. The GOP controlled the presidency and the congress from 2001 to 2007. What did they do about energy supplies besides give the oil companies more and more tax breaks? And what was the result? Retail gasoline prices tripled. How exactly is that the Democrat's fault? I challenge anyone to name one proposal that Bushco has put forward that will actually make a damned bit of difference. Sadly, there isn't one. The nonsense being spewed about offshore drilling and ANWR won't do anything about retail prices. From this week's Time magazine:
A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration - currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush - might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate - it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

Wrecking the environment will at best cut gas prices by seven cents a gallon in 20 years. So, explain to me how that solves our problems, and how exactly the Democrats caused this mess in the first place. I'm pretty good at arithmetic but I can't figure that one out.

My conclusion is that those preaching this nonsense are shills for big oil, liars, or idiots. In any event, they should do us a favor and shut the hell up.

McCain - "I hated the gooks."

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.

This quote is actually from 2000, not 2008 as I originally thought, although that doesn't make it any less offensive. I have to say I'm not surprised, though, after running across this gem:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." -- John McCain, GOP fund-raiser, Washington D.C., June 1998

I guess only a real commander in chief can make fun of a defenseless teenage girl while begging fat cats for money.

Some have claimed that the term "gook" is innocent, that it comes from the Hangul language and means "people." Well, not that Wikipedia is the final word on all things, but:

Gook: (U.S. military slang) a derogatory term for foreigners, especially south-east Asians.75 The etymology of this racial slur is shrouded in mystery, disagreement, and controversy.76 The Oxford English Dictionary admits that its origin is "unknown".77
  • According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "a native of Southeast Asia or the South Pacific, esp. when a member of an enemy military force. any dark-skinned foreigner, esp. one from the Middle East." 78
  • According to Princeton University Dictionary, it described as "a disparaging term for an Asian person (especially for North Vietnamese soldiers in the Vietnam War)." 78
  • According to Online Etymology Dictionary, "1899, U.S. military slang for 'Filipino' during the insurrection there, probably from a native word, or imitative of the babbling sound of their language to American ears (cf. barbarian). The term goo-goo eyes 'soft, seductive eyes' was in vogue c.1900 and may have contributed to this somehow. Extended over time to 'Nicaraguan,' 'any Pacific Islander' (World War II), 'Korean' (1950s), 'Vietnamese' and 'any Asian' (1960s)." 78
  • According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "Used as a disparaging term for a person of East Asian birth or descent. Perhaps alteration of earlier goo-goo, native inhabitant of the Philippines, Pacific islander." 78

I'm sorry, but there is no way to spin this as anything other than a blatantly racist remark, used deliberately and with full knowledge of its connotations, and with absolutely no coverage in the so-called liberal media.