I must admit, I had somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to that story.  I have always been resistant to people bringing up accusations of -isms when criticizing the actions of others.  That holds true for racism, sexism, and naziism to name just a few.¹

One comment of Williams’ that really stood out to me was when he said:

WILLIAMS: Well, there was an undercurrent, but in recent days the episode with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting out, You lie, as Obama was speaking to the joint session has really exacerbated that anxiety, and it’s led to this notion that there is disrespect, even condescension, in the way that Obama is being treated as compared to any other president of the United States.

I found myself thinking that this isn’t so much a disprespect directed at the President because he is black, but rather a further manifestation of what I believe we have been seeing ever since the “me” generation of the 70s.  Once we were told that WE were important, and that in a relativistic society *I* am the most important person in *my* life, it was only a matter of time until that level of narcissism pervaded every aspect of society.  We have been seeing it for years in talk radio and talking-head television shows when one person just shouts louder and louder, denying the other the basic right to be heard.  Why? Because what you have to say isn’t important because it gets in the way of what *I* want to say.

Rabbi Hirschfield, in his article “Why Joe (and Kanye and Serena) Won’t Apologize” from today’s Washington Post, points out that Wilson’s outburst is a symptom of something greater.

Over the past seven days, we have been treated to obnoxious outbursts by leading figures not only in politics, but in sports and pop culture as well. In addition to the heckle heard round the world issued by Rep. Wilson, there was the verbal attack launched by Serena Williams against a line judge at the U.S. Open, and the boorish behavior displayed by rapper and music producer Kanye West when he grabbed the microphone from award winner Taylor Swift at MTV’s Video Music Awards.

All of these stories are rooted in the same basic fact: speakers who think it’s all about them. And if it isn’t about them, they seem to think it must be about some other individual who is even more important than they are. Apparently though, it’s beyond any of the offenders’ ability to appreciate that civility is about all of us.

So while others were stunned, shocked, or outraged, I was not surprised by Wilson’s outburst, any more than I am surprised at the outbursts of any other public, or private, figure that chooses to elevate themselves over all others.  Look around.   We have been hearing reports of teens killing each other over sneakers. A cheerleader mom taking a “contract” out on her daughter’s rival.  Once we start seeing achieving our happiness as “all important” and achieving our goals in life as the most important aspect, it is little wonder we as a society start to devolve into a society of rudeness, and violence.  It is this propensity to devolve into violence then that has me concurring with Juan Williams when he says:

And it’s also then, I think, led to lots of discussion of whether or not there’s a greater chance of Obama being physically attacked, assaulted. This was heightened, of course, by people who were bringing guns to some of the August and other tea party events, you know, to express opposition to President Obama’s policies.

But let me be clear–I certainly believe there are some people who are opposed to Barrack Obama simply because of the color of his skin.  I cannot personally understand that, but I do know they exist.  But I think this cuts deeper.  It is my opinion that, when confronted with views in opposition to one’s own (either from the left, or the right) people have a tendency to view themselves as correct, and superior.  And once they step across that line, they believe they can justify any words, any action.

Perhaps I need to rethink my resistance to all charges of -isms.  If the Rabbi is right, then we do have a problem, and it is “Narcissism.”

^1. Of course in instances where one wears a white sheet, a swastika, and so forth you will get no argument from me.  I am not blind!

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…

The Democrats have, for a very long time, (read, 4 years) been running around claiming that the Bush Administration, and the Republicans, are running a “politics of fear” only able to be re-elected when the American people are “afraid.”  Well it sure looks to me like the Democrats are doing the same thing.  Oh, they aren’t trying to make us afraid of terrorists.  They are making us fear the economy.  Fear a loss of jobs.  Fear each other.  Take, for instance, this comment from Obama’s acceptance speech:

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

I am sure you see it.  We should be afraid of what may happen to us if we don’t elect Obama.  In fact, the whole first third of his speech (and of every speech) was designed to instill fear into our hearts.

Hey–I am not saying it isn’t a great style.  It works.  It is a formula for speech-writing that has been shown through the ages to be successful.

It is also a speech designed to highlight one party, and their vision of the future, in comparison to another.  I believe we call that “being partisan.”  I don’t think anyone faults Obama and the Democrats for being partisan.  After all, it was a “Democrat Party Convention” after all.  But what is surprising was the criticism put foward by the Obama camp as read in the Mercury News:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the speech “well-delivered, but written by George Bush’s speech writer and sounds exactly like the same divisive partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years.”

Hmm.  partisan attacks?  Let’s see… what could those be?

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

The speech goes on and on with these sorts of dichotomies. They (the Republicans) don’t care about, want to hurt you, only want to help their cronies.. but WE (the Democrats) care about you, and are willing to do what it takes to help you.

That, my Fellow Americans. Is partisan divisiveness. Don’t complain that Republicans do that, when you did it the week before.

Take the GE commercials, for instance.  They have laid out clearly, in several commercials, how they are actively engaged in alternative energy projects.  GM touting their lower consumption and hybrid and electric vehicles.  Boeing and their lighter and less fuel consuming aircraft.  The list goes on.

As I see it, they are telling us the things that are already going on. Steps that are being done today, based on research and development conducted for at least the past 8 years (and more likely 20-30 years.)  Clearly, we are seeing today the fruits of labor and investments made in the past decades.

On the other hand, we have Obama’s commercial.  In his commercial (hey, he approved it!) he points out that the hands that do many every day things can also things to put in place alternative energy programs.  Like wind power. Alternative fuel cars.  Solar power. All noble thoughts.  And he is right, our hands can do those things.  In fact, as evidenced by not just the other ads, but our own experience (and the fact that the video used shows locations already doing these things).

So just what will Obama bring to the table? How will he enable our hands? Hmmm?

It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones playing off the fears of the American public.  Not the fear of terrorists, but fear of energy failures.  And they are promising…. um… wait, I had the memo right here…

Oh, yeah. Change.

Now, if we could just hear what that change is, and how it will be different.

I’m still waiting.

One more thing:  the last time this was done, under Carter, the expected revenues just didn’t materialize.  According to the report published in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected.”

That got me thinking.  What people are really saying is not that they want to tax “windfall profits” (defined at the Financial Dictionary as “A sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.”) but rather people are upset that the oil companies are making money by charging the consumer a higher price than they used to. Yup.  It apparently is unfair to charge a price that the market will bear.

Hillary Clinton, on May 1st is quoted as saying “The oil companies have made out like bandits, and there is no basis for them to have these huge profits.”

That said, I started to look around and see what other companies are earning these sort of “obscene” profits, during what has been described by Obama as “a recession, or worse.” So, first, I looked at the percentage profits earned by Exxon the most-oft used target of opportunity by the left.  For that past three years, Exxon has earned between 9 and 10 % profits (computed by dividing their “net income” into “total Revenue”–all data from http://finance.yahoo.com the hotlinks on the company names will take you to those pages)

Exxon
Net Income    Total Revenue    ”% Profit”
2005 36130              370680           9.75%
2006 39500              377635         10.46%
2007 40610              404552         10.04%

So, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I missed something.  Perhaps that 10% return in unmatched by any other company.  So, I decided to look at another company.  Yes, I had a biased selection.  I chose Apple, Inc, for two reasons.  First, Apple has had strong success making in-roads into several markets (computers, cell-phones, music), and secondly, because it seems Apple tends to be the computer platform of choice by those on the left. 

Well, it turns out Apple has performed comparably to Exxon in the first two years, while beginning to signficantly outperform Exxon in 2007.

Apple
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 1335                  13931           9.58%
2006 1989                   19315         10.30%
2007 3496                   24006         14.56%

Now, it was pointed out to me that people don’t need and iPhone, or an iPod, or even a Mac, so that comparison is flawed.  People apparently do need to consume gasoline however (I point to my previous discussion about the gas tax for why many do not need, or even consume, gasoline.)  I conceded this point.  I would, however, argue that computers have become ubiquitous, and no operating system is more prevalent than Microsoft’s Windows. So, it makes sense to look at Microsoft’s profits.

Microsoft
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 12254                39788           30.80%
2006 12599                44282           28.45%
2007 14065                51122           27.51%

Amazing.  If Exxon’s 10% profit is evil, I can only imagine what must be thought about Microsoft.

But, in all fairness, this doesn’t tell the most recent story. I can hear your critique now “but the oil prices only started really ramping up last fall, and didn’t really approach $4/gallon until the Spring 2008.”  Good point.  So what happens if we look at the quarterly numbers for these three companies, instead? (there will be some missing data, since not all companies report on the same dates.)

Exxon Apple Microsoft
6/30/2007 10.43%                          22.70%
9/30/2007 9.20%      14.54%         31.17%
12/31/2007 10.00%     16.46%         28.76%
3/31/2008 9.32%     13.91%         30.36%
6/28/2008 14.36%

So, even when Exxon was under attack from Senators Clinton and Obama, their quarterly earnings, though large, were still smaller than either Apple’s or Microsoft’s as a percent profit.  (And remember, if their total revenues were much larger than Apple’s so were there costs.)

The question then is:

Are we upset that oil, as Senator Clinton said ‘have made out like bandits, and … have these huge profits.”  Or are we upset at the price we must pay, and we lash out, without reason, at the oil companies because they are the most visible target?

——————————————————————————

n.b.: While I started this analysis back in May, It turns out the Wall Street Journal has recently undertaken a similar analysis, and arrived at similar conclusions, at least with respect to Exxon’s obscene profits of 10%.  They compared industries:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

What a story.  The LA Times has reported that Obama’s political positions are moving more centrist, looking more and more like John McCain every day.

The picture on the LA Times is even designed to evoke a sense of “sameness.” (see below) [EDITOR NOTE:  The LA Times has apparently removed the photograph showing Obama and McCain in similar active poses, although the story is still online.  No comment as to why.]

I understand that politicians often have to be politicians (you know, change their positions with the wind to stroke their egos through elections).

My question is simply this:

Can McCain now claim that he has held the centrist position the whole time, and that Obama is pandering?

In an appearance in the battleground state of Nevada yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama mocked Sen. John McCain’s energy policies, particularly his call for more nuclear plants. The AP reports that Obama said in Las Vegas “that he would not take nuclear power ‘off the table’ as a possible energy option, but blasted John McCain’s proposal to build dozens of new reactors in the U.S.” Obama “said he supports increased research into nuclear waste storage and recycling, but could not endorse construction of new reactors until those concerns are resolved.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that an underlying theme of Obama’s attacks on McCain were the status of the federal government’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility, which is opposed by Obama and most of Nevada’s leaders, but backed by McCain.