When George Bush Asked for More Oil...

By -
...did he expect the Saudis to say yes?

Really, what the heck happened there? I keep flip flopping between thinking Bush is diabolically clever, and he knew full well the way to get Americans to clamor for ANWR drilling would be to let those Ay-rabs humiliate us in front of the world.

On the other hand, that's giving a lot of credit to Bush; not only does he have to be diabolically clever, but he has to have a thick skin too.

So which is scarier, folks? If George Bush is really clever and has no pride--and thus has largely been putting on a show for the last 7 years,

OR

Bush was so ill-advised and so cocky, that he thought the Saudis wouldn't turn him down if he really asked. ?

I can't decide myself which of the two I believe, and which is scarier.

P.S. Why haven't the neocons gone nuts over the Saudis statement?? They said they wouldn't increase supply because the demand wasn't there, and that when their customers requested more oil they'd gladly fill those orders.

Well you see King Abdullah, if you charge $130 per barrel, people don't want to buy as much. But in economics we have this law of which we're quite fond...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more