The Daily Brief

Next to Survivorman, Discovorey Channel’s Going Tribal is my favorite reality-based show.

There was some confusion yesterday about State’s opinion relative to the “Mohammed” cartoons. So, here’s the “official” line from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (emphasis mine):

QUESTION:

Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION:

That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK:

We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION:

So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK:

Well, I —

QUESTION:

You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK:

I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION:

You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION:

A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION:

Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION:

One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK:

No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION:

It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK:

No.

QUESTION:

Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yes.

QUESTION:

Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK:

That’s for you and your editors to decide, and that’s not for the government. We don’t own the printing presses.

QUESTION:

Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it’s following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish — these cartoons. Is the election mood — is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK:

I don’t think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I’d refer you to that answer.

QUESTION:

All right.

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yes, George.

QUESTION:

Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do — or is it — or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?

MR. MCCORMACK:

George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That — all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is — it’s not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.

QUESTION:

You’re not dictating — everybody knows you can’t order people not to —

MR. MCCORMACK:

Right.

QUESTION:

— print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find —

MR. MCCORMACK:

You’re right, you’re right.

QUESTION:

— now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying — you know, that — you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this — you’re dealing with deeply-held beliefs.

MR. MCCORMACK:

You’re right. You’re right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of — millions and millions of people around the world would find these images — these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.

I am rapidly becoming a fan of The Perricone Weight Loss Diet. It seems to incorporate all of the latest real science on the matter. And the only thing I see that’s medically “out there” is Dr. Perricone’s stress on cellular inflammation. I don’t know that this is BS, I just haven’t heard it elsewhere.

I’ve been something of an athlete for most of my adult life. But I became rather inactive after I contracted chronic antibiotic resistant rhinosinusitis sometime in the late ’90s – and subsequently gained a lot of weight. So I particularly like his ideas on losing weight without losing muscle mass. The only time I have really “dieted” in my life was back when I was in the Air Force. I was hitting the weight room 3 times a week, and doing a 2 mile run the other 3 (with one day off). I was a very “dense” 217 lbs. But the freaking “chart” said, at 20 years old and 6 feet tall, I couldn’t be more than 187. So I quit the workouts and the running, and cut way back on my calorie intake, and dropped the thirty pounds by my next weigh-in (it was three months later, IIRC), and avoided the “fat boy” program. But I felt like shit.

So, here’s a diet where you eat real food in satisfactory quantities (albeit in a different balance than you are likely accustomed), loose fat without losing muscle, feel good, and even have a nice complexion (Perricone’s specialty is dermatology) – sounds like a good deal to me.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine from the San Fernando valley emailed me asking if I knew where he could get a DVD of Black & Blue¹ (another of the greatest concert films ever). I checked around for a couple of days. And, after finding nothing, save for what seemed to be a bootleg on an auction site (for actually more than retail, when you add S&H), I suggested he go down to Rhino Records in West LA.

Well, much to my surprise, I got another email today, saying Rhino Records is closed (along with another called Aron’s, which I’ve heard of, but never been to).

Egad! For the last 25 years or so, Rhino Records has been a SoCal institution. It was the one place where, no matter what your musical tastes, you could get anything. Checking around the web, it seems online music sales have cost them too much business. And founder, Richard Foos, thinks the only future for brick-and-mortar record stores is for small, and highly specialized (niche market), mom-and-pop stores – with a very loyal customer base.

This is a shame. Like so many other products, the convenience of buying music online can’t be denied. But there is something magic about browsing through the bins of a good record store. Although I must admit, much of that has died with the demise of the BVD².

Notes:

1. It seems the Black & Blue DVD (a 2002 remaster, which I simply must hear) is sold out, but another release is planned this year.

2. BVD: Black Vinyl Disk.

On his blog, Austin Bay, a commentator I generally revere, celebrates President Bush’s decrial of America’s “addiction to oil.”

Bay, you are a fucking idiot. America has no addiction to oil. What we are addicted to is energy. And, as I will show later, that is hardly a bad thing.

But, let us assume for the moment, that we are “addicted to oil”, and with us, of course. the entire modern world. Well, can we agree that the most egregious manifestation of this “addiction” is the dependence upon foreign sources? And as such, we should drill in such places as ANWR? NO! absolutely not! (Except for that the persons to whom that resource rightfully belongs – the citizens of Alaska, and, mostly, the native Americans who live there, WANT it exploited.) As long as we can afford to buy it, we should suck the rest of the world dry. And then, when the end times come, we can say, “fuck you – we got oil, you got nothin’.”

But, all that aside, let us talk about “America’s ‘addiction’ to oil:” This is total fuckin’ green-speak: I am amazed that our President is buying into it. We are not “addicted to oil;” we are addicted to energy. And this is a good thing.

I would like to see a President deliver a SotU address, saying “I intend to have this nation double it’s energy consumption in the next five years.”

And why, you ask? Because, truth be told, energy consumption is directly analogous to “wealth”. The greenies like to kvetch over the fact that “we consume one forth of the world’s energy,” This is fitting, as we produce one forth of the world’s wealth.

And this has nothing to do with efficiency. Indeed, we are making twice the out put, per unit volume of energy, as we were 25 years ago. And this is a number, contrary to the Rousseauian pipe dreams of the greenies, the “emerging economies” of the world can’t nearly match.

So, “addiction to oil”…

Yes, most certainly, we use lots of energy. And, personally, I couldn’t give a shit if that energy was used to take Khan Jr. to soccer practice, or create a revolutionary new heart valve. But, you know what? We do both! And we do it better than any society in human history.

And the lefty-greenie-apocalypse folks (wow, isn’t that some sort of weird dichotomy?) Are aghast at this: surely we could have all the benefits of modern technology, without it’s costs!

And does that mean we are “addicted to oil?” Bullshit: we are “addicted” to wealth. And, we are addicted to efficiency. Why? you ask…

Because efficiency yields the most wealth for the least input. And, just now, petroleum is the most efficient means of delivering energy, and wealth. But, wake up Bush, the free market is way ahead of the curve here.

Update: Austin has done an update, and I agree, when viewed as a message to foreign oil exporters, rather than domestic greenies, the “addiction to oil” line makes much more sense.

Sand and shale oil is our ticket out of this conundrum. And, at $60+/bl. it’s profitable (IIRC, Suncor has said they make money at $40)

And, of course, the Arctic (which Russia claims about half of) has yet to be explored.

Update 2: In today’s WSJ Best of the Web James Taranto gets it right:

One decidedly false note came when Bush complained that “America is addicted to oil” and promised new government programs aimed at a great goal: to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” This seemed just like wrongheaded palaver, boob bait for bobos. If we’re going to democratize the Middle East, why do we need to reduce imports of oil from the region?

Update 3: I am currently watching Edward Murphy, Refining Director of the American Petroleum Institute, on C-SPAN. And, as I have explained in the comments, biofuels from virdin stock is a fool’s game. But, he seems to feel that. The focus of Mr. Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative would be ethanol from bio-waste. While I still don’t believe we need a government prgram to promote it, that could be a viable technology.

Today on FNC’s The Beltway Boys – on the topic of Google’s dealings with both the Justice Department and China, Mort Kondracke said “would Yahoo cave [to the Chinese government]? I don’t think so.”

Well, guess what Mort, Yahoo already caved, then they sold out.

If you are going to do business in another nation, you have to tailor your policies to match the laws, regulations, and political whims of that nation. That’s how it’s always been – that’s how it always will be.

With all the talk, of late, about domestic spying by the NSA, now we have Russia accusing the Brits of spying, having already made a couple of arrests. And, not wanting to be left out of the limelight, we have Venezuela accusing US officials of spying on its military.

Boy, you’d think it’s 1967.

It seems we’ve missed out on a luxury junket to Amsterdam.

Hat Tip: InstaPundit