The Editorial Page of THEDEADPELICAN.COM



Home Account Search
High Gas Prices: The Hard Questions That Aren't Being Asked
At one time, I could have accurately been described as a "libertarian." I believed in things like open borders and so-called "free trade." I really believed that free-trade was not a "zero-sum game," where one party can only benefit if the other loses.

What happened?

Well, reality doesn't seem to be conforming to this business of globalization and free-trade being a "win-win" situation. The latest question concerns the skyrocketing price of gas.

Democrats often blame greedy oil companies, Republicans blame environmentalists who don't want to drill at Anwar (which has some truth to it).

But what's REALLY driving up gas prices? Increased demand from "developing nations" like India and China:

We know there’s explosive demand growth in the developing world with no easy way to turn this train around. More than a billion consumers are moving up into a higher level of consumption, demanding the comforts the West has enjoyed since the third Industrial Revolution that began in the early 1900s.

For many decades now, 1billion of the earth’s human inhabitants have consumed two-thirds of the earth’s developed resources. The other 6 billion got by on the remaining third. Now, led by China and India, the developing world is eating better and living better. And this requires massive commodity consumption, with oil topping the list.


India is one of the main countries that America "outsources" to. Whenever you have trouble with your Dell laptop computer and you are forced to call that dreaded "help desk," chances are good that you are going to be talking to someone in India.   American companies are off-shoring jobs to India, creating tons of jobs over there and raising the standard of living. As a result, they are more able to afford things like cars and the gas that powers them:    gas prices are  skyrocketing. And Americans are struggling financially as a result. In short, their gain has led to our loss.

And if you pay attention to where most of the stuff you buy at Walmart is made, you'll see a "made in China" label. People over there in China are getting  paid to make the stuff sold in American stores. They are making money off of us. Since we opened our doors to trade with China, their standard of living has gone up, and China is consuming more precious energy resources and driving up demand for them.

One of the arguments favoring the off-shoring of American jobs is that it helps poor people in developing countries. Indeed it does. And true to the concept of socialism, it does so at the expense of others (that's Americans). 

And to make matters worse, the increased emissions in these "developing countries" is raising the specter of international regulatory agencies. In other words, bigger, more intrusive  government. 

 So this is what a "win-win" situation looks like.


Thank You Louisiana
Thanks  to everyone who called their legislators, emailed the governor, held up portest signs, and did any number of things that stopped this ridiculous pay raise from happening.

A guarded measure of credit goes to Governor Jindal as well. Though he wavered here and there, if nothing else he was responsive to the voice of the angry masses.

God bless Louisiana.

--Chad  E. Rogers
Jindal Can Veto the Pay Raise or Kiss it Goodbye
I've been trying to find the best way to say this for hours now, and I think I've found it.

If nothing else, I'm sure Mr. Jindal can be counted on to look after his own narrow, selfish interest (like any politician).

I don't count him to do what's in the best interest of Louisiana, but I think I can count on him to look after his own hide- if he knows what's good for it.

And I'm not sure that he does know right now.

But if he's interested in saving his career, then he will veto the legislative pay raise proposal.

If he doesn't veto this bill, he can kiss it all goodbye.

That's not a threat. Influential as I may be, I don't have the power to single-handedly take him down, and I don't really know that I  would want to.

But there are others who will go out of their way to destroy him if he doesn't veto this thing and they will likely succeed.

Your move, Bobby.


Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Chameleon
rep86.jpg

When I think of House Speaker Jim Tucker, I think of these lyrics to the  song "Karma Chameleon" by the band Culture Club:

If I listen to your lies would you say
Im a man without conviction
Im a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go
You come and go

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go
You come and go

How  perfect in describing Republican House Speaker Jim Tucker. For he is indeed a man with no apparent conviction, who is trying to  sell a contradiction. The contradiction is that he has  paraded himself as both a fiscal conservative who demands responsible spending, and a man who joyfully praises a left-leaning Democrat for sponsoring a bill that increases legislators' pay and thereby increases government spending.

Apparently, Tucker is against any increase in government spending that does not suit his own narrow selfish interest.

First, he cloaks himself as a fiscal conservative, standing up to governor Jindal for busting the spending cap in a previous session. The great lie here is that because Tucker is willing to stand up to his own governor who is in his own party, he must indeed be a man of principle when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  

Fast forward to today when I saw him, with my own eyes, gushing over Anne Duplesis' bill raising legislators pay. Tucker endlessly droned on and on how what a great leader Duplesis was for doing that which he himself has fought against in the past:  increasing government spending,.

He also took the time to take a stab at bloggers who had the gall to post a photo of Anne Duplesis' Mercedes.  Duplesis is a Democrat who had sponsored a bill whose goal was to increase government spending, which makes  Tucker's praise for her downright sickening.

The good news is that the public has grown tired of  being mocked by this man and he  now has  a permanent target on his  back.  People like my friend Moon Griffon are already calling on Tucker to be replaced as house speaker, and people I talk to say that this could actually happen within the year.

No matter what Tucker's fate is  as house speaker, he will be shown no mercy here.
Et tu, Bobby?


Governor Jindal has said that he is against the proposed pay hike for lawmakers, at least in principal. However, he doesn't seem intent on vetoing it:

Jindal said he wouldn't veto the pay raise if it gets to his desk, saying he didn't want to give lawmakers a reason to jettison any of his outstanding legislation. He wouldn't say, however, whether lawmakers had threatened to spike any of his bills if he intervened in the pay-raise debate.


The governor needs to realize that  this isn't 1988- it's 2008.  There's a much stronger nucleus of conserative, grass roots support. The blogosphere, talk radio, and a variety of burgeoning grass roots organizations are calling on Jindal to do the right thing and veto this pay raise. Numerous columnists have also come out against the pay raise.

Speaking as a member of the alternative media, I have been hopeful, yet skeptical of the governor's sincerity about reform and limited government.  I know that there are countless others who feel the exact same way who run operations similar to mine.

Jindal needs the support of those who have fought the longest and the hardest for reform in this state.

 If he vetoes the pay raise,  he will be the hero of the day and 90% of the ambivalence toward him will vanish. For my part, if he vetos this bill he will have much more enthusiastic support.  I know he will.

If he fails to veto this bill and allows it to become law, the consequences will be disastrous, for his future and to the future of this state.  Among the ranks of reformers I have spoken to, a kind of despair is already setting in. It is painfully clear that if Mr. Jindal doesn't take a stand on this, the  hopes reformers (most of whom have worked longer and harder than I) will be dashed and many of us will acknowledge permanent defeat.

It will be considered nothing less than treason, a knife plunged into the heart of anyone who had hopes for Jindal as a reformer. If the legislators get a raise, Jindal will have left them for dead crying "Et tu, Bobby?"


These are the stakes.



An Open Letter to Lawmakers Supporting Pay Raises

Dear Ladies and Gentleman of the Legislature:

Go to hell.

Love and kisses,

Chad E. Rogers
Publisher
THE DEAD PELICAN and ROGERS RANTS

P.S. Legislators not supporting pay raises are excluded from THE DEAD PELICAN'S all expense paid trip to hell.

 

I Will be Your Villain, Baby...
Note: The following is a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Below is an anonymous email I got yesterday.


ANONYMOUS EMAILER: My god (Chad), you are the creepiest mother-f#@ker ever.


CHAD'S RESPONSE (borrowing heavily from Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Unbreakable): You know what the creepiest thing is? To not know your place in this world. That's just... that's just an awful feeling.

I almost gave up hope. There were so many times I questioned myself... so many sacrifices, just to find you.

But I found you. I finally found you.

Now that we know who you are... I know who I am. I'm not a mistake!

It all makes sense. In a comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain's going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero, and most time's they're friends, like you and me. I should've known way back when. You know why? Because of the kids. They called me "Bad Chad."

Is Jindal "Limited Government" After All?
Sure, there's been some suspicion about Governor Jindal's conservatism. Many argue  that he hasn't been hawkish enough on tax cuts, and doesn't want to cut government spending. My assessment to date is that these observations aren't completely wrong, but an article in today's Times Picayune demonstrates that they aren't completely right either.

The fact that council members are griping about not getting their fair share of pork leads me to suspect that Mr. Jindal is doing something right:

Council members griped about how Jindal's administration has dashed Jefferson's legislative wish list of late. They criticized his crew for not initially honoring an agreement with the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad crucial to the Huey P. Long Bridge expansion and for giving the populous parish short shrift when doling out the capital outlay budget to fix roads.

The council's third beef was over a hospital-financing bill that would reimburse public hospitals like West Jefferson Medical Center and East Jefferson General Hospital for treating uninsured patients.

The bottom line here is that someone isn't getting what they think is the fair share of our tax dollars.

The typical Louisiana way of thinking seems to be  "My parish's  pork barrel projects are life and death- but in any other parish, it's called "waste" and/ or "big government."

This could be  why Jindal is criticized for both expanding government and  cutting government.

No one can accuse me of being a Jindal sycophant. I have challenged him and will continue to as I see fit.

But   clearly some people are angry because they haven't gotten to gorge themselves at the public trough, which forces me to believe that while Jindal certainly isn't doing everything right, he's not doing everything wrong either.

And I haven't dispensed with all of my skepticism- the title of this blog is in the form of a question- not an answer.


Newt Sees the Gathering Darkness
It's obvious that Newt Gingrich reads this blog and is stealing my ideas.  I've had these same pessimistic observations for a long while now. That is, he foreshadows doom for the G.O.P. in '08. Newt is a politician, so  he states it much more diplomatically than I. But he foresees the same end result:


Second, there is a grave danger for the McCain campaign that if the generic ballot stays at only 32 % for the GOP it will ultimately outweigh McCain's personal appeal and drag his candidacy into defeat.
If the leading lights of conservatism are suspecting doom this soon, well...



Less Nudity? How About Less Government?
Here's the latest crazy legislation,  by Sen. John Smith (D) of Leesville. It was sent to me by a character I often talk to when I'm doing radio, who calls himself  "The Flaming Liberal." Here's the story:

Smith wants a statewide regimen of strict new regulations on businesses that sell sexually oriented entertainment and products, including exotic dance cabarets, adult book and video stores, and movie houses.Six of the bill's 13 pages are devoted to definitions of terms used in the law, including nudity, which is forbidden and seminudity is OK, but only if the seminude person remains on a fixed stage at least 6 feet from all patrons.Semi-nudes can't touch patrons.
No, I don't approve of stripping.

But I don't approve  of hauling some twenty something college girl off to jail and charging her with a felony for getting naked  and getting too close to a patron. There's just  something creepy about jailing people for behavior that is taking place between consenting adults, in a place where ONLY consenting adults are allowed.

Call me crazy. It won't be the first time, and there may be some truth to it.

--Chad


 

Republicans Have Likely Lost Sixth District for Good
Politcally, I would describe myself as conservative with a few libertarian impulses here and there. Some people think that means that I am supposed to play along with any delusions that come out of  Louisiana Republican machine.  Sorry folks, but it ain't gonna happen.

The latest delusion concerns the results of the recent sixth district congressional race.  Democrat Don Cazayoux has taken the seat formerly occupied by Republican Richard Baker.  Moderate Republicans are claiming that Woody Jenkins lost to Cazayoux because he was too extreme.

They claim that if a more moderate Republican runs against Cazayoux in November, that the G.O.P. can take back the sixth district seat. Most of their hopes hang on Michael Jackson (an African American) running as an independent and taking black votes away from Cazayoux.  If this happens, the G.O.P.'s moderate candidate will win back the seat.

That's a nice little fairy tale.

Here's the reality.

Michael Jackson thinks that his independent candidacy  is a threat to Cazayoux in November.  He also knows that he can't win. The likely reason behind any potential Jackson candidacy is leverage, pure and simple. He wants something, and will probably get it in exchange for dropping out of the race. The Louisiana Democratic party will make Jackson an offer he can't refuse to get out of the race and he'll probably take it.

But if Jackson runs and stays  until the end,  that  doesn't  improve the G.O.P's odds of winning the seat back.  Those who think that Cazayoux can be beaten are overlooking one simple fact: in politics, most "get out the vote" operations are  for sale.  

All Cazayoux has to do is write checks to the people in the black communities  responsible for getting out the vote, and Michael Jackson will become irrelevant.

And just who is the "moderate" candidate who the G.O.P. will run against Cazayoux?  The rumor mill says that it's Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne. 

Oh really? Let's remember  that Dardenne has a history of floating his name for national elections, and then dropping out.  His name was recently floated as a contender for the upcoming U.S. Senate race. It didn't happen. One suspects that he isn't especially crazy about running in vigorous, hard- fought campaigns against  formidable candidates.

As proof, I submit the first time Dardenne ran for Secretary of State. In the election, his top rivals were Republican Mike Francis and former State Senator  Francis Heitmeier. Dardenne came into that race with many adantages that he doesn't have for a congressional run. And neither   Francis nor   Heitmeier  put up the kind of fight that Cazayoux will put up. For Cazayou will go into the race as the incumbent and therefore the favorite, with the kind of financial backing that such a candidate always has. And the Democratic Congressional Committee will fight tooth and nail to retain the seat.

Dardenne has never faced such a challenge, at least not in recent memory.  If his past is any indication, he probably doesn't want to start now. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd bet on Dardenne not running once he sees what he's up against.  And if Dardenne doesn't run, that leaves no one.

Republican opposition to Cazayoux  in November of '08 will probably be token.



But even if Dardenne runs, the odds are stacked against him. What are the chances of the sixth district electing two U.S. congressman in the space of six months?

They are small.

The G.O.P. has likely lost the sixth district for good. Denial doesn't change anything.

--Chad
Missing the Point in the Gun Debate

Much of the debate about guns on college campuses is centered on the  question of whether or not it will make things safer. In this great report by WAFB's Caroline Moses, the  Southern University Police  Chief  complains that he won't know who is armed and who isn't.

Something needs to be explained. Concealed weapons are legal in Louisiana with the proper permit. Why should a lawful act suddenly become unlawful when a person walks onto a university campus? It shouldn't.

We shouldn't need a law allowing persons on a university campus to do something that is already legal in this state.

It makes no sense.

--Chad

Which Would You Prefer? High Gas Prices? Or High Gas Prices?
Gas prices are nearing the $4.00 a gallon mark.  Libertarians will argue that the free market takes care of things, and that is true. Drilling for more oil and increasing the supply would drive prices down in a free market economy.

But the market is not free- because drilling for oil in places like ANWR is forbidden.  The free market can't work its magic if it doesn't exist- and it doesn't.   This situation with ANWR is  just one example of why. All presidential aspirants will ensure that there will be no free market solutions to high gas prices for many years.

Every presidential candidate left in the race opposes drilling for more oil, including the Republican candidate.

In January, The Weekly Standard Wrote:

JOHN MCCAIN'S STRIDENT opposition to drilling in ANWR provides a belated opportunity for clarity. Republicans would be better off viewing McCain as a Scoop Jackson Democrat living under the Republican "big tent." They should consider any typical Republican positions he takes aside from his unstinting correctness on national security issues a bonus. Especially if McCain should become president, this mindset could help millions of Republicans retain their sanity over the ensuing four years.

 So. The Republican nominee is a Democrat who opposes free market solutions to high energy prices.

I feel great about '08!


 Hey, that sounds like a campaign slogan!

ADDENDUM

Governor Bobby Jindal's name keeps getting floated again and again as a possible VP nominee. If nothing else, Jindal is intelligent when it  comes to choices that further his career ambitions. It is the opinion of this writer that McCain's orbit isn't a safe place to be for someone who hopes to attain the presidency one day (if Mr. Jindal does).
Jindal Must Act on Stelly Tax Bill
A bit of unpleasant news via the AP:

The Senate's tax committee on Monday approved a big income-tax break, despite objections from Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration that the state can't afford the $302 million loss of revenue.

The bill by Sen. Buddy Shaw would restore tax brackets that were changed as part of the so-called "Stelly plan" approved by voters in 2002. Under the bill, people who make between $12,500 and $50,000 would move from the 6 percent tax bracket down to the 4 percent bracket.

 Jindal has often been criticized for his approach to ethics: he says one thing, and does another. I've never been one to criticize on such a basis.

Being inconsistent is one thing.

But acting in ways that clearly and  unambiguously parrot BOTH former governors Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster are a pro