I know that Barak Hussein Obama just misspoke. Everyone does it. If I had $1 for every time I said something stupid like that, I wouldn't need to work.
But the conservative blogosphere is all making about the same comment regarding this: if a Republican had said this, the mocking would never cease and it would be all over the news for weeks. Particularly in an election year.
Still, I was told--by a liberal--that George W. Bush is not qualified to be President because he misspeaks. By that standard, Barak Hussein Obama has just disqualified himself to be President.
Doesn't it suck when the shoe's on the other foot?
* * *
Someone else thinks oil will be cheaper in the next couple of years. To be fair I was quoting others when I said that originally, but I quoted it because it just makes sense, economically: oil is high right now because of restricted supply and increased demand. The high price will encourage others to get into the business, thus increasing supply, thus lowering the price of oil.
This article makes the point that the Saudis (in particular, and OPEC in general I would bet) are going to open the taps come 2009 in order to ingratiate themselves with the new President, whoever it ends up being, thus increasing supply and lowering the price of oil. $80 per barrel is nothing to sneeze at but it will provide some necessary relief.
The idea that the price of oil is high due to political maneuvering is not new to me; I have been trying to find a way to make sense of the notion for months and failing, because I'm not a policy wonk. This article makes wonderful sense of the issue. (My own theories had revolved around our involvement in Iraq.) But I was certain that at least some of the record-high price was due entirely to politics--and it looks like I may be right.
The people who are being hurt the most by this are people whose interests are inimicable to our own, which is why you don't hear anyone screaming at OPEC for this.
* * *
"Danica Patrick Runs Into Crewman At Indy, We're Checking To See If That's A First For A Woman", is the headline for this post at Jalopnik.
I have never been impressed by Danica Patrick. She's not the first woman to race Indy cars, for one thing, and she's not a particularly impressive driver, either, having just won her first race, her fiftieth.
To hear the sportswriters tell it, though, she's a legend--and I don't buy it. The Indy 500 coverage in the past couple years has effused over Danica! Patrick! as if she were some kind of legendary racing goddess who is deigning to return to racing with mere mortals.
I don't deny that she's qualified to do what she does. It takes a rare person to be able to keep control of a vehicle that approaches 200 miles per hour and skims along just two inches off the ground. Heck, more people have gone into space than have ever raced in the Formula 1 series--that's how rarified the skill set is.
But I don't think that justifies the hype surrounding her. There are plenty of men who have better driving records than she does, but they have the disadvantage of being men in a primarily male sport, and they don't look good in bikinis, either.
There have been other women in Indy cars and other forms of racing--who have done better than Danica Patrick does--who have not generated this kind of hype. Is it an accident that those women don't look good in bikinis? I'm not sure it is.
The comments for the Jalopnik piece focus on the fact that it was the crewman's fault he got knocked over, and I'm not disputing that. I don't think it's Danica! Patrick!'s fault he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But the headline neatly encapsulates my thoughts on the whole Danica! Patrick! issue: sports writers making much ado about nothing.
* * *
Speaking of "nothing", that's what else I've got: nothing! Ha, ha!