Hey, if it's good enough for GW...

...Uh, George Will, that is.

About those polls critical of the president's "handling" of gas prices, who over the age of 7 really thinks presidents can "handle" world petroleum prices?

You know, it's not like I'm unaware that most of my posts on this blog ooze an arrogance that goes so far as to imply that most people--including most who read this blog--are to be considered utter and complete ignoramuses and morons when it comes to understanding anything important about this world, its history, its politics, its ethics, and its economic realities and how they all integrate together.

Well, at least I'm not alone. When guys as polite and well-spoken as George Will start getting uppity, perhaps its time to start asking some serious questions about what in the hell is going on.

(link: Beck, who's addressing a different aspect of the thing)

Comments

[John T. Kennedy]

"About those polls critical of the president's "handling" of gas prices, who over the age of 7 really thinks presidents can "handle" world petroleum prices?"

Most people. How can one look at the polls and not know the answer?

[Richard Nikoley]

John, I think that was the tongue-in-cheek point, don't you?

[Jonathan Barnes]

Well, Rich...you bring up two issues this time: 1)The President and the price of gas and 2)Funding the war in Iraq. Both of these issues play heavily into the security of this country...both currently and well into the future.

Let's take the first issue. I agree, the President has no impact on current prices, nor should he/she have. In my opinion, the main function of the President is leadership. With respect to energy, the President should be asking for a crash program to create energy independence, or at minimum, dependence on ourselves and only our closest friends.

The second issue...funding the war in Iraq.
If the war was/is appropriate, then good leadership should put the cost of the war directly in front of the people at all times (in your face). The minimum people should be asked to do is pay for a large part of the war as we go. Historically, past wars are paid for within 15 years of their end. IMO, people would have been more than willing to do that and the economy would have been as well off, or better, for it.

If the the war in Iraq was/is not appropreate...that is, there was no emanate threat and we are no safer during or afterwards, then let's look at what we could have done with just a portion of that MONEY. Take border security...how about a 50 BILLION dollar Marshall plan for Mexico and the rest of central america to bring that part of the Americas into the first world. In 5 or 10 years we might not have any Mexico border issues...except maybe looking for terrorist and find people to pick strawberries, lettuce, etc.

And...50 BILLION could do a lot toward energy independence. Not that I like the method, but our government likes to provide all sorts of tax exemption/incentives for WHATEVER.

One hundred billion, a lot of money even in today's world, (what is that, less than a year's worth of the Iraq war) would, IMO,
do more toward our security than where we've been since 9/11. It would still leave a lot of money to fight terrorist around the world, compared to what we're doing, as well as have some semblance of fiscal conservatism...you know, not spending money we are not willing to pay taxes for.

OK, I may be guilty of not making it clear where I stand on the war. I didn't vote for Bush, I think he probably made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, and he certainly has made a lot of mistakes once there. Why hedge on the "probably"? Well, not being the President, not getting the advice of the people I considered the smartest around, I can only surmise. Given the level of knowledge I have...I think the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Jonathan

[John T. Kennedy]

Was it? How can Will endorse democracy knowing the answer?

[Richard Nikoley]

Jon:

looks like your other comment got posted on the other post. OK, good. At least your work came through.

You know what? And I think I might have told you this in person a time or two. I have confidence in the ability of people like you, me, and others to spend everyone's money in a far better way than is currently being done. I don't even want to argue with your list, because given THE MONEY, I really have no doubt that you'd spend it better, more effectively, more efficiently than Bush. After all, you have no political party with a thousand fish hooks into you (dems are no different, of course) telling you to spend it differently.

Absent the politics, probably even Bush would spend it sanely.

But practical politics is popularized insanity. It's f'ing insane. Everything about it is insane save one single thing: it's a peaceful way to provide everyone with $1 of benefit at a cost of about $3.

I emphasize the word peaceful because I'm not an idiot. As much as I loath everything about this State, I do appreciate that I and loved ones are generally allowed to live a life of peace. It's not without risk (see Radley Balko's site), but it is peaceful, and even when the state comes after my business, as the IRS recently did, they did so in a peaceful manner. I'm not going to be an idiot and claim that's not worth something, given the reality of underlying force. It can make the difference between a bloody horror of a life and a satisfacotry, even generally happy one.

To compensate, I speak out unapologetic and arrogantly.

To wrap it up, here's my problem. Even you or I, as unbeholden to politics as we might be, still have no right to take other people's money and spend it as we'd have it spent.