Speaking of BIG OIL. For those of you that didn't believe BIG ENVIRONMENT had a hand in the high gas prices...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dozens of gasoline stations from Virginia to Massachusetts ran short of fuel on Friday as suppliers struggled with a transition to a new anti-smog gasoline blend using corn-based ethanol as an additive, marketers said.

For those of you who thought we went to war only to enrich Bush's BIG OIL pals, I ask you - did you invest in those companies? You should have.

In fact, since you probably continue to believe that Bush sets oil prices, will invade any country that has lots of oil and otherwise give deals to these oil companies, I can still recommend Exxon as a Strong Buy!

Even if you don't like it, if you are so smart as to know the TRUE story, you might as well take advantage of it - it might make you less grouchy

Well, you guessed it, low wages.

Funny though - I'll bet lots of people that criticize Wal-Mart for low wages and relying on subsidies from the gov't really don't seem to care that illegals use the same subsidies to support their low wages. Perhaps the illegal alien lobby and Wal-Mart critics could all be happy if Wal-Mart hired all of the illegal aliens???

Here are the relevant paragraphs from a piece by Thomas Sowell:

The welfare state has made immigrants of all sorts, wherever their origin and whether they are legal or illegal, a major burden beyond what the immigrants of a century ago were. Few of the enthusiasts for more immigration seem to want to talk about these high hidden costs of "cheap labor."

[...]

Even people who have been railing at Wal-Mart for not paying their workers "enough," claiming that the taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees' health care and other benefits, never seem to apply the same reasoning to illegal immigrants.

I guess Wal-Mart is worse because the evil, rich CEO makes millions off the backs of these poor folks who are forced to work there. I wonder if illegals buy stuff at Wal-Mart?

I wrote a post on Theocracy and read several posts that seem to suggest that those on the left just don't like being told what they can and cannot do by the government (frankly, I'm more libertarian and would agree). Some examples of things the government wants to force us to do or not do - according to a variety of discussions:

• abort a baby
• smoke marijuana
• allow gay people to marry

blah, blah, blah. As if these topics are BIG deals and impact millions of people on a daily basis. The single biggest thing that the gov't makes us do seems to go unsaid and in fact is typically supported by Democrats - TAXES. Oh I know, I'm greedy for not wanting to give a large amount of my earned wealth to the poor, unfortunate who really need it. But that's okay with liberals - forcing me to give it to the gov't that is.

Just because I work so that I can earn money to raise a family, I am forced at the point of gun to work at my job from January 1st to around May 1st strictly for the Federal Government. And that's okay. It's not like they're keeping me from smoking a joint or anything - that would be UNFAIR! Oh, I see, forcing me to do "the right thing" is okay, but not allowing me to do something that "doesn't" hurt anybody is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Of course, the "right thing" is really only one person's opinion. I happen to think that the Federal Government is exactly the WRONG place to try to help anyone.

Why is it that libs don't want our government to decide what's best for us (i.e. not smoking pot), but support the idea that the gov't decides how our money should be spent. Money, personal financial independence, property rights are the greatest freedom we possess, but somehow that doesn't matter when it comes to reducing government spending. Today, our imperial federal gov't spends almost 20% of our GDP. Up until the 1920s, except in the case of war time, it never exceeded 4% of GDP. Given how much our GDP has grown, you would have thought the percentage may even could have gone down (i.e. become more efficient). Instead, we sent it in the wrong direction.

I am sick and tired of the duplicitous "don't tell me what I can and can't do" yet totally ignoring the single biggest source of government control over our every day lives. Congressional democrats crying FOUL if even the level of growth of spending is questioned. How many families are impacted by taxes vs. how many families are impacted by drugs or abortion being illegal?

Well, the MSM has their lacky of the week - Rummy. What I find quite funny is that while libs grab on to the retired generals to claim "mismanagement" and "incompetence" as it relates to the war in Iraq, these generals HAVE NOT SAID, as far as I know,

• that the war in Iraq was entered into under false pretenses (i.e. BUSH LIED), and
• that we should BRING TROOPS HOME NOW!!

Rather, the primary characteristic is that they felt we needed MORE TROOPS to secure the peace. Other than the coincidence of the fact that they, the few retired generals and the democrats, are both criticizing the administration, albeit from different angles, the two groups have NOTHING in common. So for Dems to use them is disingenuous at best.

And what is the big deal that a few generals disagreed with Rummy? There is absolutely NOTHING that says if we had two or even three times the troop levels things would have been better. In fact, I would guess that what would have happened is just as much violence and MORE AMERICAN LIVES LOST. The violence of suicide car bombs and IEDs are virtually unstoppable and if we had more troops and more checkpoints, it would only be more targets. I keep hearing how more troops would have been better, but I haven't heard how or why nor the downside of more troops (as if it would have been the one thing that made the Iraq war a smashing success).

The key now, regardless of how many troops should have been on the ground in 2004, is that the Iraqis take responsibility and move Iraq forward. So, even if there were more troops, where would we be now - 50% fewer car bombs? Is that significant? I don't think so - the MSM would still headline the violence and death toll. The real question is how would more troops have moved Iraq along faster to stability and democracy and I don't see how that could have happened. The elections were all a huge success. The sticking point now is political with the violence being almost a secondary problem.

Anyone have anything to add?