And I don't even have to comment, just read this post.

POSTSCRIPT

I am hardly the first to comment on this, but it is absolutely perfect for my subject matter. If ever there was a nation of whiners article, this is it, even without the picture. Perhaps I will even make some slightly more serious comments on the absurdity shortly.


NOTE: Oops! My first full day on this blog, and my first big mistake. My link actually wen to one of the many blogs discussing this article, rather than article itself.  So, not just my first mistake, but my first correction too! It is a day of firsts.

UPDATE

Since I said I would discuss this a bit, here goes. Not realy a complete commentary, but a bit more on the article itself, rather than the photo.

Even without the hilarious picture of women who are, to put it kindly, not in danger of imminent starvation, this article is still the very prototype of media manufactured "tragedy". These women have not even finished high school, don't work, and have survived for decades on welfare. Now that food prices are rising, they have to give up some meat and ice cream. Is anyone supposed to feel sorry about this?

First, I wouldn't accept people who earned their own money whining about rising food prices, and I am supposed to take it from those taking public money? Second, these women are the very epitome of "did it to themselves". So, I am afraid for the moment, they, and the whiny writers at NPR, are the poster children for "Nation of Whiners".

By the way, before you bring up her supposed car accident. It happened 17 years ago, she is 40. Most people have finished high school by 23! Her failures aren't in any way due top the (rather nebulous) disability she suffered form the accident. Now, I hesitate to say this as my own condition has few physical indicators, but I have to say when an unemployed 23 year old who hasn't even finished high school says a car accident left her "depressed and disabled", the formed social services worker in me thinks that, perhaps, just perhaps, she exaggerated symptoms to get a monthly check from SSI. Of course, that is just a guess. She could be quite disabled, but the fact that NPR glosses over the details, not even naming a specific disability makes me think otherwise.

(Simultaneously Posted on Random Notes and Nation of Whiners)

I am hardly surprised, in fact I predicted this for some time, mentioning it several months ago, but the NAACP has made it official. If McCain wins, it has nothing to do with inexperience, or far left beliefs, or endless gaffes, or flip flops on substantive positions, or any of the other reasons one could vote against Obama -- only racism could explain the defeat.

Get ready for four years of hearing about how racism is undergoing a revival in America. At least it isn't going to be yet another "stolen election".

After casting around for a villain, it appears congress has settled on "speculators" as the scapegoat to blame for high oil prices. Having tried out "evil oil companies" and "Bush's war in Iraq", the bipartisan consensus seems to be that somehow evil speculators have managed to drive up the global price of oil.

Let us just look at the market without the specter of sinister speculators and ask if maybe there is something there that could explain higher oil prices. Well, China and India are rapidly industrializing, and demanding massive quantities of oil. And there was a little war in the middle east which disrupted oil production in Iraq. And the US refuses to open up new regions inside the US, allowing foreign oil cartels to control large percentages of the market. Mexico's socialized oil company is showing its age with slowing production and rampant corruption. And Socialists just took over Venezuelan oil as well, which, though not immediately harmful raises the specter of declining returns there as well.

But none of those can be controlled by congress for the purpose of gathering votes. Gutting the futures market on the other hand is well within the power of congress. And so we get the demonization of speculators.

So, what do speculators do? They buy a good they expect to rise in price, then SELL it to make a profit. That second part is what gets lost in the congressional debate. They somehow think oil speculators just keep buying oil and raising prices and never sell. But then how do they make money? Speculators who just buy and hoard tend to go bankrupt, which means they don't remain speculators for long. And when they do sell, then prices drop. Which means there is no way speculators could both make money and continually raise prices. It is simply not possible to do through speculation alone.

I explained it elsewhere, but speculation does not raise prices, or does not exclusively do so. What speculation tends to do is level prices. It raises them when they are going up and lowers them when they near the peak. In other words, speculation serves to soften price shocks at both ends, when prices rise or fall too much, then speculation causes those rises and falls to be more gentle.

But congress,  being economically illiterate will blame speculators for rising prices (never crediting them for falling prices when they sell), and probably pass all sorts of useless regulations to restrict futures sales. Of course, the end result will be more dramatic swings in price, but no overall drop in prices. Mainly because speculation is reactive, it responds to price changes, it does not create them.

But it feels good to blame speculators rather than face the truth that increased demand and decreased supply leads to increased prices.  The hard facts of economics don't come with dramatic villains against which to fight, and since they aren't good theater, don't expect to hear those words from any politician.

POSTSCRIPT

Some will argue that sufficiently large investors CAN drive world markets and so are not just responsive. However, that is an absurd overestimation of trading houses and underestimation of the world oil market. If anyone thinks someone, or even some cabal, is driving world oil prices, then explain the fate of the Hunt brothers. They had more resources and were trying to corner a much smaller market, yet failed. I am afraid myths of brokerages moving markets in that way is just absurd. The speculators are in oil because it is moving, they are not making it move.

UPDATE

While I did not mention it in the main essay, clearly the government can help reduce oil prices, but only by removing restrictions on drilling and exploration. There is nothing else that will have any lasting impact on the price of oil. Releases form the strategic reserve are simply a one time fix, which probably will not even briefly lower the price.

NOTE

I recently wrote much more about this on my other blog, Random Notes. If you are interested, read any of the following articles:

In Defense of Speculators
Authoritarian Oil Talk
Stop Big Porcelain Now!
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories

They do a good job of elaborating on the points I made here.

UPDATE

I also covered a similar complaint, that "the market isn't working" on my other blog, under the title "Absurdities on Oil"

It is funny. On the first full day of this blog's existence, not one whiny story in the headlines. No cries about greedy oil companies or predatory lending or anything of the sort. Just the love fest in the middle east between the MSM and Obama.

Which means that my first two posts on a site mainly intended to complain about media created whining were instead complaints about specifically conservative idiocies.

Hopefully tomorrow will bring a new crop of stupidities, as without the MSM providing me material, I will be reduced to just repeating what I said on my main blog about the lending crisis, oil production and the housing crisis. And that isn't what I intended when I started this.

Well, we shall see how it goes. I am sure the MSM can't spend all their time massaging Obama's ego. Sooner or later they will find a new villain to pillory, and I will finally have some decent material.

I have recently heard a number of those upset with McCain bemoaning the unwillingness of Americans to vote for a third party. They claim that the only thing keeping the Republicans alive is the unwillingness of Americans to embrace a true conservative party.

But is a conservative third party viable?

The current situation is an about even division of Democrat and Republicans, each with between 40% and 45% of voters, with 10% to 20% independents and others. So, what would be the fate of a conservative third party?

Well, it could simply replace the Republican Party, taking the 40% of Republicans, plus maybe 1% to 2% of the "other" votes whoa re more conservative than Republicans. However, if it absorbs the entire Republican Party, won't it vote just like the Republicans? So how would that be anything more than just a superficial name change?

So, if we want a real conservative party, we have to eliminate the liberal wing of the Republicans. Since the liberal wing is numerous enough to control many congressional elections, and put McCain in as the presidential nominee, they have to be at least a significant minority, if not majority. That means a conservative third party could expect, at best, 20% to 25% of the total electorate, plus maybe that 2% which is unaffiliated, but more conservative than the Republicans.

So, the end result is a Conservative Party with 25% of the votes, a Republican Party with 15%, 20% independents, and 40% Democrats. Which seems pretty clearly a setup destined for countless Democrat wins. Even if the Republicans disappear, as they are clearly unwelcome in the Conservative ranks, they would simply become independents, or even Democrats, leaving us with a party that is still about half the size of the opposition.

Might I propose that, rather than abandoning the party, or purging those on the other side, we try to educate the party, and the general public, and thus move them to the right? Is that not a better plan that staging a coup which amounts to nothing more than slitting our own throats?

POSTSCRIPT

This in no way contradicts my previous post. In the last post I was discussing how to eliminate RINOs, I said nothing about whether or not it was a sound electoral strategy. In reality, I would think the best strategy would be to continue accepting "big tent" support, but press for a more conservative platform and more conservative nominees. If the party itself moves tot he right, odds are good that most current party members will move with it.

On the other hand, a sudden jump to an enforced conservative position, either by a split of a third party or by a coup within the party, will likely alienate party members, the way the superdelegate selection alienated Democrats.

The best answer is something akin to the DLC movement within the Democrats, creating a conservative group within the party which assists in moving the platform to the right and supports conservative nominees. By both defining clearly what a conservative is and by trying to move the party toward that ideal, if manages to reform the party without alienating party members.

But I have drifted a bit far from my original point. I wanted only to point out that those who oppose a third party are on pretty solid ground. At least as long as winning elections matters to conservatives.

Again and again, I hear conservatives decry the RINOs, the supposed conservatives who vote more often with the center or even the left. They keep asking why we have such a large group of non-conservatives in the party and why we are burdened with RINOs while the Democrats remain relatively unified.

Well, first, as Obama is showing, the Democrats are hardly as unified as Republicans think. Just as we have RINOs, they have DINOs, who tend to cross over as often as voting the party line. Just think of the term "Reagan Democrats". At least we don't hear about "Gore Republicans".

But ignoring that, the answer to why we have so many RINOs is simple, we allow them in, some of us even are them, at least when it comes to some issues. Just think about how many conservatives suddenly accept big government solutions when it comes to oil or foreign trade. Think of how many Buchananites and Perot followers are still in the party. We want a "big tent" accepting all comers who say they are conservative, no matter what their real beliefs.

Look at foreign policy and trade and tell me how Obama and Pat Buchanan differ? Except that Buchanan likes Moslems a bit more, they are indistinguishable, yet people are willing to call Buchanan a "paleo-conservative".

And that is your answer, short and sweet. We have RINOs because we never defined what a conservative is. For fear of driving some from the big tent, we left the definition wide open and many slipped in who we now regret. If you don't want big government "conservatives", then define what a conservative is, and make sure it excludes big government policies.

Simple, is it not?

UPDATE

I am sure some who read my post are going to argue that it isn't the "paleocons" and others who are the problem but the "Rockefeller Republicans", that caricature of old money country club members. However, has anyone ever met an actual Rockefeller Republican? Or anyone who supports them? I have certainly seen posts by thousands who argue for trade restrictions or think that any oil we drill in the US should somehow be forced to go to the US. And we saw how many supposed conservatives were ready to embrace a big government guy like Huckabee.

Yes, there may a handful of those Rockefeller Republicans, but no more. The far greater problem, in terms of RINOs are those who are partly conservative and partly supporters of big government. The supposed "Rockefeller Republicans" are no longer a meaningful voice within the party. Those who blend conservative and liberal philosophies are.

Ever since Phil Gramm got in an immense amount of trouble for telling the truth, I have been thinking of taking his message to heart and telling everyone how we are to blame for our own problems. It is an unpopular position, in fact many people, politicians, the media, and others, make a good living telling us all how we are not responsible for our own problems,  but I think someone needs to do it.

If you think about it, it really does make sense. How many times have you ascribed something to "bad luck" when really it was simply the outcome of bad choices? Or maybe a lack of preparation? Or even taking a risk you should not have?

And while we conservatives often choose to blame government for our woes, that too is our fault. We have an elected government, and though they might not listen to our wishes, we always have the chance to vote them out. So bad government, like everything else, can be laid at our doorstep as well.

So, think of me as the anti-media, the anti-politician. While they whisper sweet lies, telling you that it is not your fault and they will make it all right, I am going to try to tell you the truth, that it probably is your fault and you're the one best situated to fix it.

I don't expect to make a lot of friends with this blog.