1. When Reining In an Imperial President Was the Conservatives' Cause
--headline on a sidebar article accompanying "The Executive Power Awaiting the Next President."
They could have just as easily titled that article When the Imperial Presidency Was the Liberals' Cause. (Along those lines, it's always amusing to count, in NYT headlines, how frequently Republicans "attack" while Democrats merely "criticize.")
2. "Since both [a story about Syria's nuclear program and a human interest story about a wedding] are given equal weight, it can be hard to separate out the pain of one family from the strategic needs of the state. This makes it challenging for Israelis to step back far enough to gain a view of what is happening."
Do I misunderstand that passage or did the author just insult (by patronizing) an entire nation, (most of whom I suspect are at least as good at geopolitical analysis as the author himself), based entirely on overgeneralizing from 20 minutes of radio listening?
BONUS IRE: An editorial cartoon on page 2 makes fun of George Bush's hypothetical reaction to learning that off-shore drilling would take over a decade. Guess what, folks? If we had our act together a decade ago, guess what we'd have now?
I think we should all bow to the superior intellect of the cartoonist and then sit on our butts and wait for some other solution. Then, gosh, do you think we'll still have an energy crisis ten years from now? Do you think, maybe just maybe, we'll wish then that we'd made it legal to started drilling now?
DOUBLE-BONUS IRE: Thomas Friedman insults me personally (and humanity in general) when he compares energy consumption to drug addiction. Would it not be just as apt to call ourselves "addicted to" economic progress and affluence?
Meanwhile, the "Battleground" (back page) columns aren't insufferable so much as inane.
Posted by Matt Bruce at June 22, 2008 12:03 PMGuess what, folks? If we had our act together a decade ago, guess what we'd have now?
Off-shore drilling and $4.00/gallon gasoline.
Most of the people being pandered to on this issue haven't taken economics, but for those who have, the long-term supply for petroleum is inelastic even after a small one-time bump up or positive supply shock. Demand, meanwhile, has continuously increased with population growth and rising affluence. Drilling off-shore would have supplied inexpensive gasoline to a few million more cars added to the world's fleet in China, India, and Texas, buying us a matter of months before we hit the ceiling and the invisible hand forced conservation of fuel upon all of us.
Posted by: M.S. at June 23, 2008 07:49 AM