Recently, I have had an opportunity to listen to talk radio quite a bit while traveling to various doctor appointments, so I have heard more pundits than I normally do, and I have to say, McCain should look elsewhere for advice.

First of all, these pundits seem genuinely surprised McCain is ahead in the polls. This alone shows how much the big name pundits have been caught up in the same media bubble as the MSM. They have bought into the media narrative that Obama was simply adored by everyone and that McCain has no hope. Unlike those of us outside the media realm who have been writing for months on the certainty that Obama would self-destruct, that he could not win after having built his race on content free rhetoric, the big pundits all seem to think it bizarre that McCain is ahead of Obama in the polls.

And, as if to prove how out of touch they are, many are now pushing for Romney as McCain's VP TO WIN OVER CONSERVATIVES! Now, I supported Romney after Thompson left the race, but that does not make Romney a conservative. He was the most conservative man left in the race, but being more conservative than Huckabee and McCain does not make you a conservative. So it seems bizarre to claim Romney would somehow win over conservatives. If anything, it would win over centrists, as Romney has not exactly been a pure, hardline conservative. If McCain wants to try to put a conservative on the ticket, he should try Hunter, Thompson, or Jindall, not Romney.

But I don't even agree with the pundits that he should try to pander by putting a generic "conservative" on the ticket. McCain would benefit much more by putting forward a VP candidate who is strong on one of his weak positions. For example, if he could convince Tancredo to run it would convince conservatives that he was not about to give amnesty, as Tancredo would definitely require assurances before running. Or if he picked someone like Coburn, it would send a stronger signal of fiscal responsibility. Rather than fishing for generic conservative support, he may be better picking a VP strong in a particular subject where both he and Obama are weak. Imagine what subjects would suddenly become viable if Tancredo were on the ticket. McCain can't really challenge Obama on immigration, but McCain/Tancredo could.

Of course, those are only two possibilities, but I think the general principle is sound. Pick a VP on issues, not on an overall "conservative" image. It will probably pay off much more than trying to pick some generic conservative poster boy.

POSTSCRIPT

I have to mention one exception to my statement above. While almost all of the big conservative pundits seem to have been caught up in the Obama hype, even if they oppose Obama, one pundit does seem to be more immune to the media bubble than most. While I have said some slightly critical things of him recently, Rush Limbaugh has been better than most at maintaining an outside perspective and not being caught up in the media hype. Of course, I don't listen to him regularly, so my impression based on rather casual listening may be wrong. But a far as I can tell, he has not been caught up in the media mainstream as much as many other conservative pundits.

For those who have been following my argument about the absurdity of much of the talk about oil, I recommend you read John Stossel's latest column. He echoes a lot of what I said about the wrong-headed move for "energy independence".

I also recommend my post yesterday about "peak oil" and the many absurdities related to that topic. You can find a list at the end of that article containing most of my writing about oil and energy in general.

POSTSCRIPT

Though Stossel did a fair job covering "energy independence", it is a topic I have been meaning to cover for some time. I am unable to write more for a few hours, but tonight I will try to write my own essay, filling in some of the gaps I found in Stossel's article.

UPDATE

By the way, if anyone doubted my contention that conservatives start sounding like liberals when it comes to oil, read the comments to Stossel's column. Except for a handful who get the point, the rest start shouting about security and hostile governments and independence, and in the end all are basically promoting big government solutions. Who cares if the rhetoric is internationalist or nationalist, pro-poor or pro-industry or pro-military, when the outcome is a socialist state? Does it matter if it is a commissar or a geschäftsführer who tells you what to do? I don't care what the rhetoric is, government intervention is government intervention, and we should oppose all of it, regardless of the jargon used to support it.

Someone really needs to remind conservatives what conservatism means, and remind them very forcefully that the rules aren't suspended when it comes to oil. If we are for the market, we are for the market, even if you have to pay a bit more for something you need. Special "exceptions" are how we get socialism. What was FDR's entire program except a series of "exceptions" to the free market? And see where that got us.

Well, have to go have surgery. I will write more tonight, health allowing.

I saw this ugly comment on a post about Obama's campaign:

If you make more than $250K per year, then yep, watch your wallet! You're going to have to pay something back to the country that made you what you are today!

If you make less than $150K then watch the tax breaks flow back into your pocket!

I can't say that I didn't expect to find class envy of this sort among Obama supporters, but I still find it such a disgusting attitude that I have to comment.

First, why do people who earn more deserve to have their money taken from them? What makes them less entitled to their earnings than those who earn less?

Second, why do these people adopt such a tone of moral superiority? Is their failure to earn an adequate wage supposed to make them morally superior? Does that mean people who live in states with high costs of living (and commensurately higher wages) more immoral than those from low cost of living states?

And finally, yes, we all benefit from the laws and protections of our nations, so why do only those who earn more have to "give back", while those who earn less are entitled to take?

And, to be honest, let us admit that this is not about "giving back to our country", Obamaniacs aren't asking for the rich to fund more police and soldiers, this is about giving to those who have less. It is class envy pure and simple. It is about taking from those who have more to give to those who have less. I might admit my country deserve some of my money for protecting me, but I do not admit my neighbor does.

And that, really, is my question for this Obamaniac and others, what entitles YOU to my money?

I won't be posting until late as I have to have one additional surgery today. I do apologize to my regular readers for my rather slow pace of posting the past few days. My earlier surgery left me somewhat uncomfortable and my writing suffered. Hopefully after today I will return to my normal rather manic pace. I may not post this afternoon, as I imagine I will be somewhat sore, but check back tonight or tomorrow and you should find some new content.

I have written before on peak oil, so much of what I am about to say has been said before, but it still seems a good idea to put it all together in one place. Also, I am including some new content, for example, the fact that the entire Alaska pipeline was built after we supposedly reached peak oil in the US, so there will be some new content. In addition, b putting it all in one place I think it will be much more clear for those who are curious about the topic.

As I mentioned before, there is a rather interesting article in the June 2008 National Geographic magazine about peak oil. And, while it is obviously hardly a definitive description of all aspects of the topic, it does quite clearly present the reasoning behind those arguments, and, much more importantly, it shows that my original argument is basically correct, that those forecasting the end of oil production are doing so by confusing known reserves with total possible reserves. Not only that, but it shows that many predictions are founded on an even more spurious basis, and one I did not anticipate.

Let us start by summarizing the basic "peak oil" argument. The argument is that there is some fixed amount of oil in the earth*, and as we extract that oil we will eventually reach a point where we cannot reasonably produce any more oil per unit of time. This point has been dubbed peak oil. After that point, oil production will either plateau or level off.

Now, let us first deal with the concept of peak oil. I will then argue that, even if peak oil is meaningful, the methods used to predict it are incorrect.

First, the whole definition of peak oil reminds me of nothing so much as Malthus' predictions of starvation is population growth outstrips agricultural expansion. And just as with Malthus, the peak oil theory ignores the impact of technology. Even now, wells which were considered exhausted are producing oil through a variety of new technologies. That means that what was yesterday's peak oil could be far from tomorrow's peak. Not just reusing spent wells, but oil sands, coal, oil shale, and a variety of other sources all could yield oil economically in the future. So any prediction of a peak has to make assumptions about future technologies, and all such predictions have been far from reliable in the past**.

A second, and bigger, problem is whether peak oil is even meaningful. Julian Simon pointed this out when he argued that we will never truly run out of any natural resource. The fact is, should we reach peak oil, when demand rises, prices will rise as well. This increased price will make alternatives more economically desirable. Gradually, the rising prices caused by a production plateau will both spur searches for substitutes and for technologies which allow us to extract more oil. (Not to mention exploration for as yet unknown oil sources.) Which means that the price rises caused by a production plateau will both reduce our demand for oil as we use substitutes and may allow us to produce more through technological innovation. In short, peak oil may either prove not to be the peak after all, or else will force us to wean ourselves off oil. Which means that peak oil may not prove the crisis so many are predicting. For a time the price increases may be uncomfortable, as they are proving now, but in the end it may prove no more devastating than the whale oil shortage which moved us to petroleum, or the wood shortage which moved England to coal. Shortages occur all the time, and most often the change to an alternative proves beneficial int he long run.

But let us ignore both of those arguments and assume that peak oil is something we would wish to predict, the question remains, are current predictions of when peak oil will be reached valid? For purposes of this argument, I will leave aside questions of technology, even though those are quite significant, even when looking at no more than a five to ten year time horizon. Technology moves quickly, making predictions based on present methods invalid in a short time. But, for the moment, let us ignore technology and look at the other issues involved.

In an earlier essay I argued that peak oil was based upon currently known reserves, which is a mistake. I actually went a bit farther and allowed that some predictions started form known reserves and extrapolated possible future discoveries. It turns out that I was far too generous. According to the National Geographic article, one of the more dismal predictions of peak oil for Saudi Arabia is based precisely on the overly simplistic methods I described:

Since the mid-1990s he had been studying data from the 250 or so major fields that produce most of the world's oil. He looked at how much crude remained in each one and how rapidly it was being depleted, then added all the new fields that oil companies hoped to bring on line in coming decades.

In other words, he basically looked at oil reserves we currently know and said "We are running out of oil." This is precisely the simplistic reasoning I have argued against in earlier essays, the same reasoning that has lead to forty years of scare mongers telling us oil will run out in 25 or 30 years.

For the benefit of those who have not read my earlier essay, I will reproduce here the argument against that position:

I wrote about this before, but I want to correct one misapprehension, the idea that we KNOW how much oil there is in the earth. Any number you see is an extrapolation from "known reserves". Known reserves, almost without fail, tend to be about 20 to 30 years of oil at current consumption. Why? Because oil companies have no interest in prospecting once they have that much in reserve. It is costly to prospect, and if you have oil to run for 20 or 30 years, why look for more. Well, as oil is drilled, they will continue to prospect for replacement reserves, but that would still need to keep known reserves at somewhere between 20 and 30 years.

That is why since the1960's we keep hearing "Oil will run out in 30 years!" Because scientifically illiterate journalists confuse known reserves with total reserves.

Or, put simply, we always have known reserves of about 25 to 30 years, but that means nothing. The quantity of reserves is almost always 25 or 30 years AT PRESENT CONSUMPTION, which should tell the doom mongers something, that the amount of known reserves is not a measure of the absolute amount of oil available, is not even related to the total amount of oil in the earth, but is, instead a function of present consumption. So, unless you are drawing conclusions about present oil consumption, known reserves is useless.

However, the error of confusing known reserves and total oil in the earth pales in comparison to another mistake, one so bizarre, I would never have imagined anyone making it had I not read it in the article.

I first saw this article in my doctor's office, and almost fell over when I read one quote. My first thought was "I have to write about this". At the time, I forgot that my wife had bought me a subscription to National Geographic for my birthday, so I despaired of ever being able to quote it, but since then I have found my copy, so I can share with you the quote which shocked me:

After geologist M. King Hubbert correctly predicted that U.S. oil production would peak by the early 1970s, analysts adapted his mathematical formula to calculate the peak of world oil.

As soon as I read this, I realized that there is even less basis to peak oil predictions than I had first thought.

Now, I am sure some are wondering what is so damning about that quote, so let me explain. Basically, it argues that all peak oil predictions are based on the work of Hubbert, and Hubbert's claim to fame is predicting that US oil production would peak in the early 1970's. But there is one big problem with that. US oil production did peak a little after 1973, but the reasons for that peak were entirely political, not technical. Which means that Hubbert's prediction was right entirely by accident, and that the remaining theories which base themselves on Hubbert are thus based upon an incorrect model which only happened to fortuitously predict the moment when political forces caused US oil production to drop.

Once again, I covered all of this in an earlier post:

The woes of the oil industry began in the Nixon administration. With the signing of the Smithsonian Accords, effectively taking the US off the gold standard, inflation suddenly became a huge concern for the government. Worried that the rapidly falling dollar would cause economic collapse, Nixon imposed wide ranging price controls. Worse still, from the perspective of the oil industry, Nixon imposed strange price controls on domestic oil production, distinguishing between "old" and "new" wells, favoring the former.Finally, even when he lifted price controls on the rest of the economy, oil remained controlled. As a result, the oil industry virtually stopped exploring. As "new oil" was priced lower there was little incentive to search for it. So, for the entire decade of the 1970's, until Reagan lifted price controls at long last, the oil industry did very little exploration, and known reserves dwindled.

From the 1980's until the present, a second factor has been keeping the known reserves low. That has been environmentalism. As soon as  price controls went away, opening up the possibility of oil companies again exploiting oil fields in the US, environmental groups began to flex their political muscles and shut down exploratory drilling everywhere. As a result, few new fields were added to the already small known reserves.

Which means that while Hubbert's prediction happened to get the date right, his reasoning is still completely wrong. There was no technical reason for oil production to drop in the US in the 1970's. Price controls caused "peak oil", not any technological issues.

For those who doubt this, I would point out a simple fact. Once the price controls were lifted, and prior to the imposition of modern, crushing environmental controls, we opened a number of new wells, including the Alaska pipeline. Had we reached our peak, it is unlikely we would have opened so many new wells. Nor is it coincidental that this sudden burst of drilling took place almost immediately after the price controls were lifted. The evidence suggests very strongly that price controls had much more to do with our lack of new drilling than any technical issues.

All of which brings me back to where I started, my assertion that even if we allow that peak oil is a meaningful term, our present methods of predicting when it will occur are far from plausible. Not that I think it is even a meaningful term. Even if we see a plateau in production, that does not mean it is "peak oil", there may not even be a single "peak oil". We may see a plateau, but future technology may make that temporary "peak oil" only a temporary peak, with future oil production higher still. So what seems peak oil may prove to be nothing of the kind.

And even if there is a "real" peak oil, some point at which we can find no way to extract any additional oil, it will likely be, at worst, a temporary inconvenience. As I said before, we have experienced numerous shortages, of whale oil, of wood at various times in history, of a variety of essential resources. And, throughout history, when we have started to run out of an essential resource, we have found a replacement, and progress has continued. I see no reason to think oil is a special case, so I can only assume, should we eventually start to run out of oil, we will find a replacement. We may suffer some discomfort, prices may rise even more than they have now, but we will find a solution. I know that past events are no guarantee of future events, but the pattern has happened so many times in the past, our response to a shortage has been so consistent, that I cannot help but believe it will be the same with oil.

Of course others will argue that we should start looking for that substitute now, so as to avoid that future discomfort. But that is simply incorrect. First, as I said, we may never really see "peak oil", only a series of transitory plateaus overcome by technological innovation and substitution. Or we may not even see that. But even if we do eventually reach a permanent plateau, it is far more efficient to allow the market to come up with the mix of substitution, economization, and new technologies that pleases the greatest number of consumers, rather than confiscating money now and decreeing a government solution. We may be able to find a substitute energy source by doing so, but at best it will simply produce the same result as the market and more likely it will leave consumers less pleased than had they been allowed to come up with their own solutions.

All of which is a very wordy way of saying "don't worry". Peak oil may never truly arrive, and even if it does, the market will solve it in a more satisfactory way than any of the various "Manhattan projects" that the fans of central planning want to undertake immediately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This point is not really in dispute. The only counter arguments are those raised by the abiotic theories of oil formation, which at present seem unlikely. Other than that, I would argue that, if oil is formed form ancient organic material, there is still oil being formed, so the quantity is not absolutely limited. However, formation is so much slower than extraction that it can safely be ignored, so, effectively, there is a fixed amount of oil available.

** One of my hobbies is collecting old "futurological" books. I love finding books from the early 1960's predicting what the 1970's or 1980's would hold. It is quite a laugh to see how far off they are. I even own some specialized texts, such as computer texts from the early 1980's which try to predict the future of computer technology in the next 10 years. What is interesting is, even within a very limited field such as personal computers, and with a very limited time horizon of 10 years, how far off the experts can be. For example, most computer books I have found from the early days of computing see nothing replacing the magnetic storage devices of that time. And, while it is true we continue to use magnetic hard drives, these predictions fail to imagine anything like nonvolative RAM (NVRAM) or CD/DVD technology. So, if the experts can miss so much when looking only 10 years into the future, I am a bit leery of how well the oil experts can forecast the technologies which will effect when peak oil is reached.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

My previous essays on peak oil and reserves can be found here:

A Thought on Oil Reserves
A Brief Comment on Oil
Why I Doubt Peak Oil Predictions

Other essays relating to oil, and energy in general, can be found here:

In Defense of Speculators
Authoritarian Oil Talk
Stop Big Porcelain Now!
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories
Oil Speculation?
A Brief Comment on Oil
G-d Save Us From Simple Solutions
Absurdities on Oil
Those Darn Speculators
Economic Illiteracy
Obama's (Lack of an) Energy Policy
One Specific Idiocy
A Thought on Solar Energy
Oil Logic
Solving High Food Prices
Several Convenient Untruths
It's Not An Energy Policy
A Question for Those Supporting Green Energy
Life Without Villains

This list may not be comprehensive, but it covers most of the major essays on my blog.

And finally, one recent essay, part of which deals with the proposals to resolve our current energy woes:

What We Deserve

Most of the essay is off topic, but I include it as it is interesting to see the absurdly authoritarian solutions being proposed by nominal conservatives.

POSTSCRIPT II

I know many will point to current oil prices as evidence of "peak oil"'s validity, but I would instead point to oil scare books of the 1970's. It appears that whenever we see a sudden rise in prices, whether from political causes, such as in the 70's, or from increased demand, as today, we begin to hear the fear mongers talking of oil running out. My only question is this: If it is so clear oil is running out, why was no one screaming about this impending doom when gasoline was ready to fall below $1 per gallon? Why do we only get these scare stories when prices rise and audiences become more receptive?

Is it just me, or does it seem that the scare stories seem to crop up only when oil prices are high enough to make them an easy sell?

CORRECTION 08/20/2008

It turns out my memory was incorrect and the Alaskan pipeline was opened prior to the removal of price controls. However, as most of our other drilling still took place in the early 80's after price controls were lifted, my initial argument stands. Then again, the fact that Alaskan oil was being sold while price controls were still in place discriminating between "old" and "new" oil, may explain why most oil went to Japan, as Japan had no such price discrimination. Having been driven into Japanese contracts by such restrictions, and with Japan as close or closer than US refineries, it is no wonder oil would continue to flow there.

In any case, whether opened in the late 70's or early 80's, all of our Alaskan oil still started flowing after "peak oil" was reached, making a bit of a mockery of those predictions.

It should be the most intimidating moment of a college student's life, the moment he has to look at a respected authority's work and declare it wrong. Of course, given our fondness for iconoclasm of late, that is not the case. We have freshmen with the nerve to write essays declaring the leading lights of their field are completely off base. (I am guilty myself having written one of my best undergrad papers on why Morgan's theory that slavery grew out of indentured servitude was absolutely wrong. Oddly enough, I now think I went too far, and my paper was itself just as wrong as Morgan.) However, ideally, an honest college student, not caught up in the revisionism so fashionable these days, should be put off by the prospect of declaring a respected thinker wrong.

Part of the reason for this is that we have a natural inclination to believe that anyone who is intelligent must also be right. We simply have an instinctual abhorrence of the concept that one can be both brilliant and wrong. Which is why I am writing this essay.

You see, it is partly due to this instinct that we so often see claims, on either end of the spectrum, that the other side is populated by fools. Thus we hear the claims "All educated people are progressives" (meaning liberals), or "Only a fool would be a liberal". Of course, there is some arrogance at play here as well, the belief that one's ideas are so obviously brilliant that only a fool could think otherwise. But still, to give those speaking the benefit of the doubt, there is also the tendency, inherent in most humans, to think that it is just not possible that someone could be both intelligent and wrong.

If you want another example, look at how scientists are treated in political discourse. Rather than repeat the actual arguments of the scientists and judge the arguments on their merits, we simply repeat the conclusions and attach the scientist's CV, as if his credentials prove the truth of what he says. (Oddly, scientists themselves do the opposite, presenting papers without credentials, to ensure they are judged on the merits, as most scientists seem to realize even geniuses are wrong more often than they are right.) IN areas such a sglobal warming, the argument is carried out in terms of the number of PhDs on either side and then countered by the positions held by various champions, as if either quantity or quality of minds were a substitute for proof. The same is often true ine conomic debates, where rather than proof, we are told that the chairman of this department or this former economic advisor says X, and so we must believe it, regardless of proofs. Even in everyday life, we see the effect simple fame can have. For example, the common belief that vitamin C can fight off colds is founded solely on the renown of Linus Pauling, whose fame was great enough to allow this belief to persist to this day despite a total lack of evidence in its favor.

And, on the opposite side, we see the belief in arguments, where it is not just enough to prove one's opponent wrong, one must also prove him a fool. We hear Obama rejecting Clarence Thomas not because they start from different premises or reach different conclusions, but because Obama claims Thomas lacks an understanding of the Constitution. It is not enough to show that one's opponent reached the wrong conclusion, or even started with faulty premises, we must show that the entire chain of reasoning was incorrect, that they were, in short, fools for ever disagreeing with us. You can hear this every day in those who characterize others as "sheep" or try to impugn the motives of those who oppose them. They simply cannot admit that another person could honestly hold an opposing viewpoint.

I think the time has come for us to admit that it is possible to be both intelligent and wrong. In fact, that even a correct theory can be undone by incorrect premises. That perhaps some of our foes are truly foolish, perhaps some are simply following a trend, but just as likely, many on the other side are quite honest in their belief. We can still argue that they are wrong, that their theories are flawed, or that their premises are incorrect, maybe that the data they use is mistaken, but can we stop insisting that everyone with whom we disagree is a moron?

POSTSCRIPT

Now, none of this is intended to argue that there are not fools, or dishonest individuals who twist arguments to meet their ends. When we encounter someone who believes in a an idea regardless of all the proof, or someone who is obviously lying, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. All I ask is that we give up the silly assumption that anyone who disagrees with us must, by the simple fact of disagreement, be an idiot.

I was just thinking about the whole Saddleback Church presentation, and two things struck me.

First, while it is obvious to anyone (except the media, apparently) that both sides went in with scripted responses, I have to ask who scripted Obama's responses. I know he had a hard task ahead of him, giving answers palatable to the Christian audience, which would also play well to independents, but which would not offend his hard-left base, but even given that difficulty, a lot of his answers came across as evasive. Even his seemingly honest response about his moral failing sounded more like a promo speech for his autobiography rather than a heartfelt revelation. Clearly McCain was just as scripted as Obama, but at least his script sounded honest. His first marriage was a moral failing, he would reject the liberal members of the Supreme Court, those are honest answers. Obama's answers often felt like the equivalent of "next question please", or, at best, "see page 12 of my platform", he just did not come across as saying anything new.

The other problem, and a big one, is an utterly nonsensical pair of statements in Obama's responses. He first says that he would not select Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court as he lacks an understanding of the Constitution, based mainly on the fact that the noted scholar Obama differs with his reasoning. Yet, at the same time, Obama refuses to answer the question on abortion, dodging it with his (supposedly) pithy response "that's above my paygrade". If that is the case, then how can one who refuses to think about such issues claim that a man who doe shave to answer such questions is incompetent? Obama's rejection of Thomas' reasoning sounds a bit like a fifth grader rejecting a doctorate in mathematics because he's "goofy". If Obama won't answer, or can't answer, a question about when life begins, he really is in no position to be critical of Thomas.

Then again, all of that assumes Obama's answers were offered honestly, and we all know they were not. The "paygrade" comment was his (supposedly) clever way to avoid a question where the honest reply would have offended his audience, while his rejection of Thomas has nothing to do with Thomas' intellect, and everything to do with his politics. At least McCain openly rejected the court's left wing, while Obama felt he had to pretend Thomas was somehow incompetent.

All in all, it was not Obama's finest hour. And given Obama's considerable number of gaffes, that is saying something.

Some in the media have taken to describing Obama as a "rock star". It seems a little silly, this effort to describe him in these terms. I know they are trying to evoke the excitement he generates among certain segments of the population, but it still sounds a bit goofy.

However, the more I think about it, the more I realize that it may actually be the most accurate description, though not in the way they intend.

For example, just like a rock star, Obama's main fan base is among the young and aging hipsters whoa re afraid of being left behind. On the other hand, most of the parents of Obama's fans either claim they don't see what all the fuss is about, or compare him unfavorably to the political rock stars of their youth.

And just like a rock star, his fan base also seems to have enthusiasm that is a mile wide but about an inch deep. They may swear at the moment that they would give their lives for him, but come the next rock star they will have all but forgotten him and they will look back on their enthusiasm with a bit of embarrassment.

In addition, like rock stars Obama has let his success go to his head, and he has assumed he is really as good as they say he is. Like the movie actor who decides he can direct, or the band which abandons the familiar to put out an "experimental" album, Obama not only is prematurely adopting the trappings of an office he does not yet hold, but he gives every sign of letting more of his true beliefs make their way into his speeches. He has abandoned the blandly neutral, content-free speeches which brought him so far and has started to pitch the one-world line, talking of citizens of the world and later declaring the need for "both sides" to be restrained in Georgia. (I suppose Georgia should be restrained in their desire not to be invaded in exterminated, while Russia should be moderate in their exterminating?) He is starting to be convinced by the adulation heaped upon him that the whole world is ready for the "real Obama", and so he is foolishly throwing caution to the wind and beginning to let his real beliefs out.

And finally, like any rock star, Obama is hurt by the very exposure his stardom demands. The more we see of him, the more tired we get of seeing him. While those who adored him caused the media to spend so much time covering him, the sheer volume of media coverage made it certain he would wear out his welcome.Those who swore they could not get enough of him suddenly found out they really could, and that point was reached quite a while ago.

There is only one aspect of stardom I hope does not come to pass. Obama may be the Creed of politicians, going from obscurity, to momentary stardom, to overexposure, to burnout and eventually disappearing altogether, but I hope, unlike Creed, his stardom does not inspire countless imitators. Politics already had more than enough empty promises and vague rhetoric, we don't need a host of Obama imitators to add to those numbers.

I was reading an article from the LA Times on Obama and McCain's speeches as Saddleback Church when it struck me just how delusional the media can be. Now, I am not talking about the general bias of the article, I expected that. When the reporter wrote:

[McCain] drew frequent applause with crisp answers intended to reinforce his conservative credentials.
Obama offered more nuanced and analytical answers on some issues important to conservative voters

I was far from surprised. I expected him to portray McCain as opportunistically exploiting the conservative crowd while Obama opened up his heart and poured out his honest Christian sentiment. I expect that sort of garbage from the Obama loving press.

What did surprise me was this tidbit:

Obama's responses tended to be more freewheeling, while McCain frequently recited portions of his stump speech.

That one floored me. Read the article and tell me one quote form Obama that sounds less than carefully scripted. Every one is obviously the work of a careful ghostwriter, who is at great pains to make sure the answer will pass muster as "Christian" while still giving no offense to Obama's left wing base.

What makes it all the more amusing is that America has seen Obama speaking off the cuff, without prepared speech, and it soudns nothing like the careful speech he gave at Saddleback. Despite the claims of the author, the one distinguishing trait of Obama's unprepared comments is that they tend to be clumsy, full of pauses and unintelligible noises, and generally get him in a lot of trouble. Where his speech at Saddleback was careful and obviously scripted, had he really spoken off the cuff as the author suggests, he would have made a much worse impression.

Sadly, I get the impression that the reporter is not lying for the benefit of Obama, but really believes the "great man" really was speaking off the cuff. Which raises the question which is worse, a press that lies to benefit Obama or one which really believes he is some sort of secular messiah?

We say we want better leaders, but we often don't act as if we do. We say we want honesty, but when Phil Gramm tells us we run crying to the state when anything goes wrong, we chase him from public life. And we claim we want men who aren't enamored with wielding power, but when we think Fred Thompson isn't fascinated with running for office, we refuse to support him. In short, we say one thing and do the other. We may say we want better leaders, but judging by our actions, we get the leaders we deserve.

For example, look at our current discussion of oil. Thanks to the rise in prices, most on the right are, quite properly, pushing for an end to restrictions on drilling and a removal of the government impediments to building new refineries and other infrastructure. The position is unobjectionable, but the debate is. First, we are admitting to the conceit of the left that a perfectly normal market phenomenon is a "crisis" that the government must solve. Rather than stating first that the increase in prices is the natural outcome of a higher demand, exacerbated by our own lack of oil production, we state it really is a "crisis" which the government must solve. We are conceding the statist beliefs of the left. Second, we are often stating the argument in the protectionist term of "energy independence". That is simply a meaningless term. Unless we are going to pass laws prohibiting the import or export of oil, all energy will be traded on the world market, and, even if we produce enough oil to fill all domestic needs, we will have no illusory "energy independence". Worse still, some go even farther and argue for forcing the newly drilled oil to stay in the US, either arguing for a nationalized oil industry or for what amounts to the same thing, prohibition on export of the oil. And yet this is the supposedly conservative position.

Nor does it get better when we look at housing and mortgages. Again, many are conceding the argument before they begin. There is no lending or housing crisis. Artificially lax lending and artificially inflated housing prices are finally facing market correction, that is a good thing, yet those on the right are afraid to say so. Instead we pretend that the government created housing bubble and lax lending were the natural state of affairs and there is some crisis to resolve. Some may argue that the market should be used to correct this supposed crisis, but even then, by admitting the "crisis" they are buying into the left's premise that the government made distortion was somehow desirable. Worse still, others propose even more interventionist solutions, most simply watered down versions of the solutions on the left, from "debt relief" (meaning some version of forgiveness, that is confiscation of wealth from lenders), or "forbearance", (forcing lenders to wait to collect, usually without interest or at a greatly reduced rate), or some form of government backed refinance. As I said about oil, these are supposedly conservative solutions.

And then we have the social conservatives who push for greater government censorship of broadcast media. Starting from the thoroughly statist premise that "the public owns the airwaves", they proceed to the equally statist premise that the nominal representatives of those "people" can tell others what they can broadcast on those airwaves. Thankfully the growth of cable, satellite and internet broadcasting is swiftly killing the whole "public airwaves" debate, but I still must ask, why are the airwaves "owned by the public"? Do we say your land is "owned by the people" and you only license it? So why should conservatives buy into this argument about airwaves? Should we not be fighting for property rights in broadcast bands rather than admitting the thoroughly socialist "public ownership" argument? Well, probably, but it would not work for the social conservatives, who see the public ownership as the wedge they can use to enact their agenda and force others to broadcast only content of which they approve. In other words, to get their form of authoritarianism they will accept someone else's authoritarianism as well. And, again, this is a supposedly conservative position.

And that is really the problem. Conservatives may whine about "RINOs", and claim that McCain is not representative of the party, but most conservatives behave every bit as liberally as the RINOs they deplore. Maybe they are left on different issues, but the conservative movement has by and large been cowed by the left and continues to argue on terms set by the left. Judging by how most on the right approach problems, if McCain is not representative of Republicans it is not because he is too far to the left, as those opposing McCain are themselves arguing for trade barriers, censorship, nationalized oil, and a host of other positions which would have horrified conservatives of a generation ago.

Worse still, they put these beliefs into action, at least in terms of elections. When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate consistently state "that's not the government's job"? For that matter how often has a candidate even said that about a single issue? I can recall McCain saying something along those lines about the housing crisis, but note how little support that statement got. Rather than rallying behind those who try to limit the scope of government, we instead emphasize the "big plans" the same candidates have. That is, just like the left, we get excited about how he is going to use government, not how he is going to refrain from using it.

Of course, we make excuses for our addiction to big government. Maybe the public won't accept that it isn't the government's job. Or this is a crisis. Or oil is a "special case", and the market just doesn't work. That is actually a favorite. We believe in the market, except in this single special case, because somehow market rules just don't apply. Amazing how many exceptions exist to the laws of economics. Judging by the exceptions supposed conservatives have found, I wonder why we bother with economic laws at all, as the exceptions outnumber the cases which follow the rules.

Of course none of it is true. The laws of economics apply because they are nothing more than the laws of human nature. Taken to their most basic level, economic laws are simply codifications of traits common to all humans. (Rather than write 600+ pages justifying this, I will refer those interested to von Mises' Human Action, which starts with basic human desires and builds to the entire structure of Austrian economics.)  There is no reason to think that even in the most peculiar situations that government intervention will produce results better than would the free exchange of goods. Nor is there any reason to think the public would reject a politician who honestly promoted freedom rather than government dictate. We have never tried.

All these claims show us is, for a huge number of conservatives, the arguments of the left have won. The right has come to believe that the state really is a good tool for managing the economy, and the economy needs government intervention. When they say the public won't vote for someone who says it isn't the job of the state, what they really mean is that they wouldn't.

Which leaves us with a bit of a problem. If the liberals are fighting for a big state and conservatives are fighting for a big state, where do the rest of us go? I am not talking about third parties or protest votes, I mean, quite simply, how do we describe ourselves? Libertarian is no good, as it also entails fighting for NAMBLA and cop killers and a number of other sickening groups, and while I describe myself as a federalist, that is because of related but separate beliefs. But with conservatives having gone over to the big government side, what's left?

Do we take a page from Prince's name change and call ourselves "The System of Beliefs Formerly Known As Conservative"?

I think we need to take a few deep breaths and collectively think for a moment about what politics really means, and what we can expect from our politicians. I know it sounds a bit stupid to say that, but honestly it seems far too many people have incredibly unrealistic views of politics and politicians, and it is leading to some terribly silly outbursts this election cycle.

The first silliness, and the most obvious, is, of course, the fawning over Obama. Not to put too fine a point on it, but he is just another politician. A Harvard educated lawyer, he did his liberal apprenticeship as a "neighborhood organizer", was tapped for a sinecure state senatorship, and, when the original holder wanted the seat back, engaged in cut throat politics to keep his seat. He has shown at every turn that he is just as superficial, just as unscrupulous, and just as opportunistic as any politician. Which means that all those caught up in a schoolgirl crush are going to be sorely disappointed if he is elected. Once in office I can guarantee their "new politician" will engage in horse trading and compromises just like any politician, and his promises will prove just as untrustworthy as any of his predecessors'.

But Obama supporters are not alone. The right wing of the Republicans are just as unrealistic. Caught up disappointment over McCain they have not only rejected McCain, and the Republican party, but establish ed a checklist of criteria that no human could possibly meet. The illegitimate offspring of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan would still be a bit too socialist for the current crop of McCain haters. They have not only convinced themselves of the absurdity that McCain is worse than Obama, but they very loudly proclaimed they will basically vote Democrat until the Republicans nominate a candidate who meets every one of their criteria and then some. Fortunately, most conservatives have relented and decided a tenth of a glass is better than nothing, but had the extremists had their way, their grand scheme to "save conservative values" would have effectively silences conservatism, as no party was going to risk losing the entire center to appease a few all-or-nothing extremists. (Ask the hard line socialists in the Democrat party how well all-or-nothing demands work.)

Actually, on a related note, the conservatives and liberals have collectively been rewriting history to add to the unrealistic impression of politics. The conservatives have been busy recasting the memory of Ronald Reagan into the image of their perfect candidate. Forgetting Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, the retreat from Beirut, amnesty for aliens, and all the many compromises, the conservatives have taken their anti-McCain checklist and ascribed it to their mythical Reagan. It is a useful delusion, as they can now argue all they want is "another Reagan", allowing them to pretend their delusional desires are reasonable after all.

Not to be outdone, the left has tried to capture Reagan as well. Forgetting all the mockery, the senility jokes, and their efforts to portray him as a cowboy who would bring nuclear war, the left now claims that "everyone was opposed to communism". It now appears fashionable to pretend that, despite ideological differences, everyone cheered the "tear down this wall" speech, probably because no one likes to admit to having been on the losing side of history. Unfortunately, a few of us are old enough to know it just wasn't so. (The right has likewise engaged in a strange hijacking of JFK, pretending that somehow he was a conservative. He may have been, by today's standards, but that doesn't mean I want to claim him. Please, let the left keep the Bay of Pigs and his half-hearted intervention in Vietnam. We have enough mediocrities of our own, do we really need to steal one from the other side?*)

Returning to current matters, we have another strange delusion, that all it takes to be a conservative is to claim one is a conservative. Which means we have protectionist, anti-free trade, near neo-Nazi Pat Buchanan and big government Mike Huckabee milling around comfortably in our big tent. Now, I admit we can't be too doctrinaire in our platform should we hope to win elections, so the Republican Party does have to cater to positions other than the strictly conservative, but does that mean we also have to dilute the meaning of conservative to the point where Buchanan saying "Christian" once a paragraph is enough to make him conservative? Can't we define conservative narrowly and Republican broadly? Otherwise we end up with absurd debates such as Huckabee supporters telling free market proponents or federalists they aren't conservative because they don't believe the federal government should protect school prayer**.

We also have the absurdity of nominal conservatives arguing in terms that would make a liberal cry with delight. We see conservatives arguing that ANWR and off shore drilling should be allowed, but only if the oil MUST go to the US. I other words, they are arguing for essentially nationalized industry. It is a sad day when we see the liberals actually arguing for a more free market position than the conservatives.

And finally, we have perhaps the most damaging of our political delusions. After saying for years we don't want any more power hungry politicians, men who just crave office for the sake of wielding power, we finally had a candidate, Fred Thompson, who reluctantly entered the race and tried to state clearly that he was running for the good of the country and to reduce the power of Washington. And what do we do? We reject him because, sad to say, he wasn't eager enough to run for office. (This alone makes me think we really do deserve the politicians we get. Well, this and our anger at Phil Gramm for telling the truth.)

I am sure this list could go on and on, but I am sure you get the picture. For all the time and energy we devote to thinking about politics, it appears that we really are no more realistic about politics than teenagers are about their latest crush. And for all the mockery of the Obama cult, it appears the right is no less deluded. They want a statist solution to oil, while claiming to be free market. They want a man who is reluctant to hold office, but reject him because he isn't eager enough. The right's delusions may not be as embarrassingly juvenile as the Obama love on the left, but it is still every bit as unrealistic.

------------------------------------------------

* I know the effort here is twofold. One, to show that Kennedy supported cutting taxes and ,two, to show Kennedy was anti-communist. I suppose the point is to show just how far left today's leftists are. But really, do we have to pretend Kennedy was a great president to do that? Had he not been shot, he may not have even won a second term. And deservedly so. Do we have to twist the past just to make a point?

** For the record, I don't believe the government should say anything about prayer in public schools because I don't believe there should be public schools. On the other hand, if an individual state wants to fund a school system, the rules are the concern of that state, not the federal government. I would argue against even states funding schools, but as a federalist I allow that states have the power to do so, even if it is a bad idea.

I was reading comments today when I saw someone arguing that anthropogenic global warming is just common sense as the evidence is overhwelming. He pointed to all the experts, the computer models and the thinning of "the arctic ice". That was when it struck me, there are facts, and then there are "facts", little snippets which might be true, but of limited applicability, or might even be false, but which regardless of truth have been repeated so often to support an argument that even opponents don't challenge them. AGW arguments seem to be rife with these.

For example, we often hear that this or that ice shelf is vanishing. Which is true, most often, but ignores the fact that 94% of Antarctica is undergoing a cooling trend. The 6% which is warming holds a few named ice sheets which seem to get all the attention, however. Somehow no one bothers to mention all the other ice shelves which are expanding.

The "thinning arctic ice" is another such "fact". Yes, some areas of Arctic ice are thinning, others are thickening. It is a variation which has been recorded since the middle ages by mariners. Sometimes regions have more ice, sometimes less. And the same with glaciers, we hear about vanishing or retreating glaciers, but somehow the equally numerous advancing glaciers are never mentioned.

Over and over we are told part of the story. Whether it is "thinning ice" or "unused leases" held by oil companies, we are presented with just enough 'facts" to be pushed to the conclusion the speaker wants. Unfortunately, we seem to be remiss in questioning such "facts". Were we to do so, doubtless these "facts"  would be swiftly debunked and we could stop hearing them.

Well, perhaps not. I still hear people who should know better telling me sharks don't get cancer.

Our culture is funny. We have become so obsessed with the "outsider", the outlaw, the person who can stand apart and tell us the truth about a group that we accept this role being played by the most unlikely people. We have celebrities who tell us how shallow celebrities are. We have rich liberal politicians telling us how evil the rich are. And now we have the ultimate political insider Obama telling us how bad political insiders are.

Think about it, this man is hardly an outsider. True, he was not born rich or well connected, but he went to Harvard, which certainly seems to be the preferred school of political insiders, and after that he became a "neighborhood organizer", which basically means apprenticeship for liberal politics. He was tapped to fill a seat the party expected to be vacant, and then, when the seat holder decided to run, he used political tricks to run her out, all of which suggests that, rather than being outside of politics he was quite well connected and well aware of the ins and outs of Chicago politics.

So, how exactly is this a "different kind of politician"? The life he lived sounds like pretty much every liberal politician I have ever seen. The only differences are his early grab for the presidency and the fawning adulation the press heaps on him. Other than that, how does he differ from your run of the mill politician?

In replying to a comment on my blog, one of those posting comments mentioned he would support nuclear power if it were "safe". And it struck me that I have heard many assert they oppose nuclear power because it is not yet "safe".

The problem being that "safe" is not defined.

However, on the face of it, it would seem safe. For example, civilian nuclear power has resulted in absolutely no deaths in the US, where coal power has kille dhundred through steam leaks, fires, and boiler explosions. That would seem to make nuclear power safer than traditional source of electricity in most people's eyes.

But that is not enough for many who claim to want safety. Instead they point to the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown, argue that we "don't know" what flaws may exist in our plant designs, point to "long term" consequences about which we are as yet unaware, and so on. Arguing that there are many possible threats we do not yet adequately control.

All of which creates an impossible standard. It is possible to die from drinking water, but we do not call water unsafe. You can drown in a saucer or trip down stairs and break your neck, yet no one calls saucers or houses unduly dangerous. But nuclear power is being held to this absurd standard of absolute perfection.

Which shows the real reason most argue for such safety standards, not to ensure safety, but to prevent us from building any reactors. Of course many do not have such aims, merely aping the statements of people they believe, but those who create these arguments, they realize the impact. They know quite well that, so long as they hold nuclear power to the standard of perfection, we will be unable to prove nuclear plants are "safe". And, as with any human activity, once we demand perfection, we find it prevents us from acting at all.

I have read many people, and heard many politicians, argue that "more oil won't lower prices." Now, as the basic law of economics is that, all things being equal, greater supply lowers prices, I have to ask, how can they say this? Some try to argue that the oil might lower prices just not "US prices", but as there is a worldwide market, it is impossible to see how prices could be lowered in one market and not lower prices elsewhere.

But then again, I don't have to show it. And that is my point.

You see, the rule in arguments is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And claiming that oil does not follow the laws f supply and demand seems to be the very textbook definition of an extraordinary claim. Which means, though they act as if it were self-evident, it is incumbent on those saying more oil won't lower prices to provide some pretty convincing proof that their assertions are correct.

Not that I expect them to offer it. More likely the argument will be something like "The reason more supply won't lower prices is...Sorry, some evil speculators int he pay of Big Oil stole my proof! See how evil they are!"

But for the rest of us, who get no political mileage out of maligning "big oil" or scapegoating "speculators", I have to request that the next time you hear someone claim more supply won't change prices, ask them why, and, more than that, refuse to accept anything short of actual proof. If enough people start to do this we may actually see this silly assertion vanish once and for all.