[tag]Caspar Weinberger[/tag] has died. He was the Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan from 1981-1987.

Rest in Peace Caspar.

Story at WMUR Channel 9 in New Hampshire:

WASHINGTON — Caspar Weinberger, who played key roles in the shaping of the so-called Star Wars missile defense program and the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration, has died. He was 88 years old.

effective April 14th. Josh Bolten will take over the Chief of Staff position.

Fox News:

“After five-and-a-half years, he thought it might be time to return to private life and this past weekend, I accepted Andy’s resignation,” Bush said. “Andy Card has served me and our country in historic times,” including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, economic ups and downs and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush said.

Card has also made great legislative achievements on issues such as education and Medicare, and he helped confirm two Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

“In all these challenges, and accomplishments, I have relied on Andy’s wise counsel, his calm in crisis, his absolute integrity and his tireless commitment to public service,” Bush said. “Andy is respected by his colleagues for his humility, his decency and his thoughtfulness. They look at him as a role model and they, like me, will miss him.”

I’ve actually been to the brewery too!

Guinness (66% dark & bitter, 66% working class, 100% genuine)

Okay, we all know Guinness is the best possible score on any “What Kind Of Beer Are You” test, so you can just go on and pat yourself on the back now. Like the world’s most famous brew, you’re genuine, you’ve got good taste, and you’re sophisticated. What else can I say, except congratulations? If your friends didn’t score the same way, get ready for them to say: Guinness is too heavy; it’s an acquired taste; it’s too serious–and they probably think those things about you at times. But just brush ’em off. Everybody knows Guinness is the best. Cheers.

Via The Anchoress

In addition to changing being an illegal from a misdemeanor to a felony, the Federal government should also impose sanctions against “Sanctuary” cities, those cities that refuse to inquire into a criminal’s legal status in this country. All Federal funds for those cities should dry up until the cities comply with Federal laws.

Kate at SDA hits the nail on the head:

Because journalism is no longer about delivering factual information about current events in appropriate context. It’s become a faux-profession increasingly populated by individuals who aspire to influence political outcomes and public policy – but who are too lazy (or too stupid) to earn that right by running for political office the old fashioned way.

I was thinking precisely that thought (though in less eloquent terms) just the other day. It increasingly appears as though the media isn’t just reporting the news in a biased way, but have taken it a step further and are engaging in political advocacy. What is particularily insidious about such conduct is the extent to which it involves an abuse of their constitutionally protected status (freedom of the press) as purveyors of information.

This past week we were given an opportunity to peer into the soul of the pacifist. And it wasn’t pretty.

Pacifism is premised on the notion that war is always avoidable. There is always a non-aggressive solution to geopolitical problems. The fundamental flaw with such absolutism (absolutism in any aspect is invariably flawed) is that, in war, it always takes two to tango. Pacifism is all well and good in a utopian vacuum, but what if the other side of the conflict isn’t benevolent but rather has belligerent or aggressive intentions. In that situation one is invariably faced with the option of backing down and giving into the demands of the aggressor or standing firm. Here is where the pacifist chooses to simply ignore reality.

The belligerent isn’t really being aggressive, so says today’s pacifist. He is just misunderstood. If only we could understand him conflict could be avoided. Integral to our misunderstanding is the notion that his aggression was ultimately caused by our own actions. Regardless of how obvious the aggression appears to be, it can always be traced back to our own conduct. Ultimately, all aggression is really our fault. The importance of this notion cannot be overstated. For if the root of the belligerent’s aggression is really our fault, then we are in control. What we have done, can be undone. Not only is peace possible. It can be achieved at our behest.

Through this reasoning, the pacifist is able to turn the dynamic of a conflict on its head, whereby the party that seems to be most responsible for the conflict is virtually taken out of the equation. This week we saw this dynamic played out before our eyes.

The pacifists were taken by force, held against their will, threatened with death, and one of them was murdered. Yet the party that was intent on murdering them was excused, while the party that risked death to save them was given no praises, but rather general condemnation.

Jim Brady has a post at Red America.

Don Surber says “Hire Me!”

I hope that the WaPo doesn’t give up on a conservative blog altogether based on the bad way that this first excursion turned out. I do hope that they will try again.

Is very similar to the Arabic word Allah.

See the story at Brussels Journal.

Via Overlawyered.

[tag]Tulips[/tag] and [tag]Daffodils[/tag] reaching towards the [tag]spring[/tag]time sunshine.<

On Studio B with Shepard Smith the topic was rising gas prices…

Smith: Pain at the Pump. It’s the worse it’s been since October, gas prices up almost 14 cents in just the past week. According to AAA the average price, nationwide, for a gallon of regular unleaded is just more than $2.51 a gallon. That’s the first jump above $2.50 since the final week of October and some analysts are now saying that there is nothing to bring them down with summer right around the corner.

Joining us from D.C. now is the acting director of Public Citizens Energy Program, Tyson Slocum is with us. Tyson I saw the big oil people up on Capitol Hill yesterday, you know, they’re explaining to us why it is things are getting more expensive. But oil lately has been down, why are gas prices going up?

Slocum: Well I think we’ve got uncompetitive markets here in the United States, Shepard. We’ve allowed way too many mergers in the U.S. oil industry. Remember Exxon and Mobil used to be huge global competitors, now they’re the same company. The same thing with Chevron/Texaco, Conoco/Phillips. That’s why all the oil companies keep posting record profits every quarter, at the same time that crude oil prices are going up. There’s a direct correlation, Shepard, between the record profits that these oil companies are earning and the prices that consumers are seeing at the pump and also what we’re seeing for home heating oil and for natural gas.

Oil is a global commodity. The U.S. may be a big consumer of oil, but we are not the only consumer of oil. India and China are gaining on us quickly. The mergers of a few U.S. oil companies doesn’t really affect worldwide competition in the oil market. There is a direct correlation between gas prices and profits. That’s simple economics.

Smith: How high are we talking about gas prices going given the circumstances with which we are now familiar?

Slocum: I think we’ll definitely see well over $3.00 a gallon this summer. There’s no question about that. And I think you’ll also see continuing record profits by the oil industry. And so until we start addressing some of these fundamentals, until we start doing something about using a little less oil by introducing better fuel economy standards. Until we do something about the uncompetitive markets, you know, re-examining some of these huge mergers and strengthening anti-trust laws and doing something about the record profits that the oil companies are enjoying consumers are going to continue to pay.

Better fuel economy standards won’t show anything for many years. There are too many cars already on the roads that are and will be getting worse gas mileage than any new “standard” you can come up with. Until those cars go to the great auto graveyard better fuel economy standards aren’t going to make much of a difference. I don’t have a problem with better fuel economy standards, mind you, but better standards instituted today will make no changes to gas prices today. On the merger issue, I think you are shutting the barn door after the horses have gotten out. Oh, that’s right, you said to re-examine the mergers. In that case I take you are suggesting that Congress ought to pass a law to make them split up into separate companies once again. Guess what will happen if you do? Gas prices will go up. Merged companies share resources. If you make them split up, they won’t be sharing those resources anymore, they’ll each have to have their own. Higher prices. Mandating better fuel economy will also increase the price the consumer has to pay for the vehicle in the first place, another way the consumer will still be paying. By taking away the “record profits the oil companies are enjoying you’ll be taking profits from their stockholders (consumers as well) and the taxpayers (more consumers). The higher profits result in higher taxes paid to the government.

Smith: Yeah, but who’s going to do something about record profits? I mean the oil execs are up there on Capitol Hill yesterday, and say what you want – or last week – they make a compelling case for themselves when you listen to them up there.

Slocum: Well I think that consumer advocates and investigators make a more compelling case. I mean, our research has conclusively found that all the recent mergers have directly reduced competition in U.S. oil markets and that’s allowed these oil companies to enjoy the biggest profits in their history at the expense of record high prices for consumers.

Smith: Tyson Slocum, thanks.

Mergers may have reduced U.S. competition, but not global competition. Higher profits do not necessarily follow reduced competition. Higher prices in the summer months are a result of the “boutique” blends mandated for some urban areas in the summer time. Not every urban area has the same mandated blend. Oil companies have to decide how much of each blend to make and store. They may have to retool between blends. This all costs money.

It’s just amazing. Nothing but the U.S. oil industry is responsible for prices at the pump. He talks about the oil companies “enjoying” their profits. Doesn’t everybody enjoy their profits? Are profits really a bad thing? He sounds as though he thinks that the oil companies should be giving us gas at cost. Well that won’t save us much, will it? The “record” profits the oil companies are “enjoying” are less than ten percent. And if the oil companies aren’t going to make a profit, then why should they remain in business?