And now a word from our sponsor
Are you feeling run down? Unpopular? Are you anxious about possible indictments? Prone to hot-tempered outbursts? Unable to stay upright while riding a bicycle?
Take strong, fast-acting Alito®. Alito® contains the active ingredient brimstone sulfate, shoring up the base while rearranging the news cycle. For leaders in distress, Alito® is truly a gift from Wonder-Working Providence.
So if you’re depressed and worried about your political fortunes, remember, four out of five spin doctors recommend Alito®.
Use only as directed. Potential side effects include loss of workplace protections, civil liberties, reproductive rights, constitutional amendments, hair, memory, and eyesight. Not recommended for democracies or republics.
I’m laughing so hard I’m crying. Or maybe I’m just crying.Posted by Dr. Virago on 10/31 at 05:14 PM
You forgot the other active ingredient...raw meat.
It will galvanize the base, but it also will galvinize the Dems. I wonder if it will bring the moderates out of the closet. The Dems (or at least Howard Dean) seem to be waking up to the need to label people as extermists and the “activist judge” thing certainly fits. Tying candidates to re-elction to this guy would not be something a moderate would necessarily want (although it would help them in a primary).
This one seems to come from the Rove laboratory, and either a quicky or someone whose always been sitting quietly in the wings. One hopes he’s too wingnutty, too late for confirmation.Posted by on 10/31 at 05:17 PM
But Dr. Berube, will it help my inflamed Cheney? And my gastroenterologist said I may need a Rovectomy—can I still take Alito, or will cause my turd to blossom?Posted by Orange on 10/31 at 05:22 PM
Orange, those are great questions. I’ll clearly need to set up an Alito® FAQ. But for now, please don’t take Alito® for your inflamed Cheney. The only reliable remedy for inflamed Cheney is a special prosecutor. Just remember the little jingle: plop, plop, fitz, fitz, oh, what a relief it is. . . .Posted by Michael on 10/31 at 06:01 PM
ROTFL, Michael. And this is just a followup to your dead-on O’Reilly ventriloquism and Hollywood casting. C’mon, you can’t really have a day job!Posted by on 10/31 at 06:38 PM
There is another remedy: though extremely dangerous and not recommended by the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, nor the Council for the Undead. Tonight, for one night only, Monday Monday Monday--you can acquire its magic, enjoy its capacity to transform, celebrate your own personal salvations. Unfortunately you have to be here in Las Vegas, but for only $39.99 (plus one penny), you too can share in the care and feeding of your own well being. This is a completely anti-acid free formula; conjured from years of fighting the system, to create this miracle “current-paradigm” obliterator. Free yourself from all awareness of national and international events; embark on the magic bus of too much of everything is almost just quite enough.Posted by on 10/31 at 06:40 PM
Now here’s the funny thing: “alito” (pronounced “AH-lee-toh") in Italian means “breath”.
You could take that judge, but it might leave you with alito cattivo.Posted by on 10/31 at 06:58 PM
Doctor Berube, will my Alito® prescription be covered in the new medicare system?
thank you.Posted by on 10/31 at 07:35 PM
Dear Dr. Berube,
Friends have recommended the infamous homeopathic mediacine called Liberalia. Frankly, I’m skeptical. I’ve read that Liberalia mediacine is just a myth. Is this so? How will Liberalia mediacine react to Alito?
Concerned In NebraskaPosted by Charlie on 10/31 at 08:00 PM
from west wing story, the musical:
i’ve just met a judge named alito!
and suddenly that name
will never be the same, to me…
bush just kissed a judge named alito!
and suddenly it seems
we’re all kind of green, about he....Posted by on 10/31 at 08:26 PM
---Doctor Berube, will my Alito® prescription be covered in the new medicare system?
Another great question. As you know, joyfull, the President and the Republican Congress have passed a landmark prescription-drug benefit that will help all Americans. Alito® is part of that benefit up to and including the $1000 paydown after the first $1750 of out-of-pocket expenses not ordinarily reimbursed by Medicare. After the paydown, above the $4000 annual limit, or the “doughnut,” all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how prescriptions are calculate, for example, is on the table. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled.Posted by Michael on 10/31 at 09:02 PM
You really have to read the fine print on these new meds. Their manufacturers are less interested in the best interest of the patient and more interested in pleasing the stockholders. And of one thing you can be sure: they will do in the most vulnerable among us.Posted by on 10/31 at 10:05 PM
Use only as directed by the Pope or your preferred patriarchal religious leader.Posted by Deb on 10/31 at 11:24 PM
Now wait. We were just talking about this before, in that oldies-radio thread. And now a hypnogogic fantasy of mine has actualized.
Best of luck with the work, M. (I unofficially recommend Provigil, in such times).Posted by Gavin M. on 11/01 at 07:26 AM
Nearly as nauseating as the placement of another Supreme Court Mussolini-lite are the predictable sobs from the Abortion Party, and I say that as a secularist who supports first-term abortion rights (at least once--after that, tie the tubes, babe). The Abortion Party holds that politics amounts to a person’s stand on whether any woman anywhere may have her fetus sucked out of her at any stage of her pregnancy, no questions asked, and according to the Abortion Party, she should be allowed to do this repeatedly at state-funded fetus-termination clinics. The person, man or woman, secularist or not, who dares questions this “right” is thought to be a cousin of Hermann Goering or something.
I suggest the Abortion Party has done great damage to the democrats’ image as a viable political force. Instead of taking on more substantial issues, such as economics, the Abortionites sort of reduce everything to their favored issue. Anyone read about the last quarter earnings of Exxon? These Texxas petrol-fascists, who also brought us the Exxon Valdez eco-disaster, raked in $10 billion in one quarter, yet most liberals and feminists pay little heed to this sort of obscenity, instead focusing on their Rikki Lake-like Politics of the Snatch.Posted by H. Alceister Rigorwirth on 11/01 at 11:30 AM
"Who’s that tramping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
“It’s I! The big Billy Goat Gruff,” said the billy goat, who had an ugly hoarse voice of his own.
“Now I’m coming to gobble you up,” roared the troll.
Well, come along! I’ve got two spears,
And I’ll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I’ve got besides two curling-stones,
And I’ll crush you to bits, body and bones.
That was what the big billy goat said. And then he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him out into the cascade, and after that he went up to the hillside.Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 11:33 AM
Now, now, Orange, we must forswear violence on this peace-loving blog, especially goat-related violence. David’s got a point, you know—liberals and feminists generally don’t give a shit about corporate profits or environmental despoliation. And all the talk about Alito has been about abortion—nobody’s brought up his positions on strip searches or employment discrimination or anything.
I thought it was pretty clever of David to offer a comment as “Abject” in response to the O’Reilly-Halloween post, too. Though I don’t have any substantial response to that one.Posted by Michael on 11/01 at 11:46 AM
It’s amusing how easily bloggers throw around the 90’s geekspeak term “troll” when they disagree or object to someone’s post. Chanting “troll” is pretty much equivalent to saying “creep” or “loser” or something worse; and the current usage-- implying “not one of us,” as Marlow says about Kurtz, I believe, in Heart of Darkness--has little to do with the original newsgroup usage. Were you online say during the era of Windows 95 you knew “trolls” were about lying and spreading misinformation, if not cracking your admin. password, and not equal to “dissenter” or even to “creep”.
The chi chi academics picked up the term, and now it’s used by the types of know-nothing Virginia Woolf affionadoes to refer to anyone vulgar enough to object to their K-mart Bloomsbury aesthetics; and unfortunately much of the Abortion Party gets it strength from these narcissistic tea-squirting dykes and eunuchs.
heh heh. I’d rather die with Mussolini than side with the likes of Babs BoxerioPosted by H. Alceister Rigorswirth on 11/01 at 12:14 PM
That’s exactly it! “Not one of us.” I know the internets look wide-open, but this here is actually a private abortion party for tea-squirters. Michael, I think the keg’s running low—can you send the eunuchs out to pick up some more Earl Grey?Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 12:23 PM
Great post. Barely time to respond, however. I’m learning the words to “O Canada.” Now we get to see if Democrats can be classified still as vertebrates. Anything for osteomalacia there, Dr. B?Posted by on 11/01 at 12:24 PM
I suggest the Abortion-at-any-cost democrats are nearly as conservative (and surely as irrational) as bible-thumping fundies. If conservatism implies hyper-individualism, and unaccountable “freedom,” and disregard of other’s rights, the woman who automatically assumes she has a right to off her fetus at any time during her pregnancy (a result of her own consenting to sex), is as much a bourgeois narcissist as any neo-con. And why should feminists draw the line at delivery? If abortion is to be permitted in 7th-8th months, then why not give the woman the right to kill her infant a month after delivery. I believe that Princeton freak Singer has argued for that.
(Didn’t you see my credentials Orange? I am all for having educational requirements for blog-posting. I have an MA, and we might compare our GRE scores if you wish. I have been published too: Journal of Applied Bakunin Theory. Of course the Toad’s MA may not be as finely embossed as the ones literary tea-squirters obtain in Ivy League schools, but it will suffice.)Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 12:51 PM
Who said anything about academic credentials? I sport a BA from a Midwestern college (and I don’t have my GRE scores handy because hello? I’m a grown-up now). But I came to the Liberal and Funny party with a bottle of wine for the host, and didn’t track in muddy footprints on his nice rug.Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 01:17 PM
Alito is just another example of the drug companies making a tiny change and repatenting the product. This one came out years ago as Scalia.Posted by on 11/01 at 01:47 PM
Actually, I don’t have a nice rug—just this old thing from the Bloomsbury K-Mart. But thanks for the wine, Orange! Always appreciated around these parts, as we’re trying to find new ways to stay funny while the party of torture, wife-beating, and prison rape takes over.
You can forget about the Earl Grey, though. You-know-who just showed up with a bathtub full of Constant Comment.
And Chris, no fair getting to Canada ahead of the rest of us. You have an enormous head start.Posted by Michael on 11/01 at 02:30 PM
And Chris, no fair getting to Canada ahead of the rest of us. You have an enormous head start.
And, unlike in Vermont, there haven’t been Minutemen hanging around to turn him back…Posted by on 11/01 at 02:43 PM
Wherever his rug may come from, Michael is an essentially genial and kind and civilized person.
Now that I’m all through being serious, HUMOR ON!!
I am unsure what dish to bring to this blog though: I looked at the famous poster of Zippy the Pinhead dressed as Santa Claus,
and am unsure whether the appropriate host present for Michael is
1) Taco Sauce and Ding Dongs (consonant with the zany humor of this blog)
2) Nothingness, which is consonant with its philosophical scrutinizerifications. (Jean-Paul Sartre says to Zippy, “You got me Nothingness! You shouldn’t have!” and Zippy says, “I didn’t!")Posted by david ross mcirvine on 11/01 at 02:44 PM
Re: H. Alceister,
It should be encouraged that anybody commenting on national economic policy should have taken and mastered a basic 1 year university sequence in Accounting and Economics, and considering that many, if not most, of the contributors to this blog are affiliated with academia and they can audit the classes free of charge, there is little excuse that they have not. Anybody who hasn’t passed through a masters program in literature would be shy to comment on literary theory (rightfully, so), yet these same and those who hold advanced degrees in literature and other of the Arts don’t feel the slightest hesitation on asserting the wildest positions on economic policy, yet they couldn’t even make (and wouldn’t even deign to work up the basic curiosity on how its done. Talk about elitism!) the simplest double entry in an accounting journal.
As much as anybody I am resentful of corporate entities making “obscene” profits, principally because I have never been able to get a piece of such profits for myself, but to declare that Exxon’s profit for the most recent quarter is obscene, or unjustified, or criminal, without any reasoning for why it is so, really tells me about the commentator’s ignorance and bias.
Yes, Exxon earned 10 billion dollars this past quarter, but this is an anomaly. On average Exxon generates a return on equity capital of 15% per annum. Equity: the total sum of capital, invested and reinvested in the firm since its inception, the fuel that keeps the fire going. Equity is not consumed, it is invested. It requires the owner of the capital to forswear immediate gratification and consider the future, for both the owners’ and workers’ sake. And Exxon invests an enormous amount of its profits back into the company to secure its, and its employees future.
15% is a good number, respectable, not excessive, and not obscene, and a portion of that money is distributed to shareholders (millions of middle class people) in the form of dividends, which are doubly taxed. The rest is reinvested in the company for sustenance and growth, enabling the companies employees to be secure in their jobs. What is obscene about that? If you would buy Exxon stock right now and the company continued to earn 15% on equity ad infinitum you would have a nice sum to pass on to your heirs. This is not obscene.Posted by on 11/01 at 04:24 PM
Michael, I think the someone unplugged the bathtub because the Constant Comment’s all gone. Do you mind if we switch to squirting Riesling?Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 05:07 PM
One doesn’t have to have a degree in Accounting to see that the price of crude has gone up exponentially since the 90s: not only are the corp. execs raking it in, so are the investors and speculators wealthy enough to buy into the hand at the Crude table. Yes, I opted for History instead of Econ., and ethics, cannibis sales, and fomral logic instead of Accounting back in the day, and while I realize that ethics is not a study with much appeal to accountants or most economists, some people--plebes even--might find it slightly obscene (that word again) that a few corp. execs and speculators are seeing millions of dollars in profits off the rise in crude prices (and oil stocks) as gas prices soar and wars are being fought. In fact when the reserves start to dry up and gas prices go to 10 bucks a gallon or more, I imagine the Forbes 400 list people-- and their accountants and concubines of course--will be safely ensconced in armed fortresses protected by the “police” and military while the urban areas fall into chaos (at least until the Corporate- funded military straightens things out and makes everything copaceptic for the oligarchy).Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 05:44 PM
(’scuzi hasty edit. I might have profitted from a typing class, but better would be a handy-dandy spell-checker appended to ye olde comment box)Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 05:50 PM
Never mind, Michael. Looks like the drain reversed itself, so we can save the Riesling for the next party. But is it safe to mix Alito® and alcohol?Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 06:12 PM
Prefer L’Allegro do ya, Orange? Me too really. Who wants to bother with like counting 40,000+ dead Iraqi civilians; not literary folks, that’s for sure.
When the Oil Wars start up again and the real police state ensues, one imagines there will be plenty of Ivy League English professors around to stage Shakespeare plays or offer French lessons for the children of the very rich.
But seems I done worn out my welcomePosted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 06:19 PM
(I hate to even point out that the original post was about Alito and not about oil profits and Iraq.)Posted by Orange on 11/01 at 06:26 PM
I sure hope Alito goes down better with the kool-aid. We seem to have some left. I will happily contribute it to the bathtub; you know building equity in the available shares to be distributed later to all those millions of middle class investors.Posted by on 11/01 at 06:34 PM
Si, Señor Naranja--the Organic Unity of the Comment Box must be preserved! What did you think of H.A. Rigorswirths’ kvetch (in regards to the predictable dyke-o-drama about Alito’s nomination) that abortion is more or less a pseudo-issue, if not a deception tactic of neo-liberal femmes? You think offing a kid say a few weeks prior to delivery is kosher?Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 06:38 PM
>>One doesn’t have to have a degree in Accounting.
Eeeewwwww, money!. I suggested that a 1 year sequence of basic Accounting would be fruitful, actually helpful in understanding economic-based public policy issues. This trained aversion to all study that touches on commerce is just so much hackneyed leftist sentimentality. How could you even pretend to talk intelligently about economics if you won’t make the slightest effort to understand the mechanics of economic systems? And accounting will let you understand how these systems work. Truthfully, without a grasp of basic accounting principles, you are talking out your ass regarding economics. Don’t be such a snob; have the courage to learn something. Tell me, I you as contemptuous about learning blue-collar trades too?
>> To see that the price of crude has gone up exponentially.
Well, it has not even gone up linerarly; in fact it has not even gone up. Adjusting for inflation, the price of crude is LESS today than it was in 1979. It’s about 60% of the 79 price. ITS CHEAPER. Besides, why should it be a national concern if the consumer has to pay more for gasoline? It’s the consumer’s own reckless choice to buy all these bloated, infefficient SUV’s that has led to a temporary gas crunch, that added with the fact that there has not been a single new oil refinary built in this country since 1976. Let the consumer pay the price. If he wants to, he can sell that damm, gas-guzzling SUV and buy a more efficeient car. Enough people do that and the price of oil will be brought into line in quick order. I don’t know why you think it should be a public policy imperative of any government to stay awake at night worrying about the convenience of the consumer (screw the fucking consumer). And there is plenty of fossil-fuel in the ground; hundreds of years worth. Sure, over time, the easily recoverable fuel will be spent, and it will tend to cost more to extract shale and sand oil, but it will be done, that’s for sure. It is estimated that the cost of recovering a barrel of sand or shale oil is $40 per barrel. Expensive, but not prohibatively so. Oh, and yes, the U.S. has over a Trillion barrels of this stuff. Canada has over a Trillion of Sand oil, so does Venezuela. And that is just the start. Yawn. This is really a non-issue. We are not anywhere near a fossil fuel energy crisis (but I wish we were).
And if you really want to talk about obscene profits and compensation I dont’ think that the oil industry or any other old-line industury (let’s call them Republican industries) is the place to look. Compensation abuse by executives is far more egregious in what I will call Democratic industries (Big Law, Big Media, Hollywood, Wall Street - Yes, Wall Street. These firms recruit heavily from Ivy and Ivy-cognate instutions; their obscenely paid employees are enitrely in sync with the Democratic Party/Left ethos.). Hey, why isn’t anybody investigating John Corzine - current senator from N.J., running for governor of that state, former chairman of Goldman Sachs - for his personal role in the Russian bond debacle in the 1990’s? Hmmmm. To twist a phrase by F.D.R: He may be a greedy, fucking, capitalist pig, but he is OUR capitalist pig.Posted by on 11/01 at 07:29 PM
Not only do you have an Accounting Degree, you must have ESP as well ! I also have some Microsoft networking certs as well: have you ever attempted the 70-216? And have a Series 3 license phor phunn as well. I don’t have to meet any of your bogus requirements to make assessments about the Texass petrol-fascists who run Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Texaco, etc. I have a fairly good clue into how investors, brokers and speculation works--and the Crude market’s steady bullish climb has made millions for a few. Moreover I wager I can spin integrals as well as you too.
Instead of say Keynes try Jefferson. America has become the Hamilton quasi-monarchy that the Founders such as Jefferson and Madison and Franklin warned against. BushCo and the GOP’s economic programs--such as the gutting of the inheritance and estate taxes, the gutting of capital gains taxes--have done a great deal in terms of widening the gap between rich and poor. THere are more billionaires now per capita while the number of people living in poverty has greatly increased as well, and there’s plenty of evidence to support that.Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 07:44 PM
Chris, don’t forget to learn the second half of Oh Canada in French. That way you can attend hockey games.Posted by on 11/01 at 07:46 PM
We are not anywhere near a fossil fuel energy crisis
There is conflicting data regarding that issue. Do some Googling, or read Rifkin and the like: some “experts” have said a crisis could occur in 10 years or less; others say 20 -30 years. Most of what I’ve read suggests it will be extremely costly to extract the remaining reserves in like under 15 years, and the Shale-oil and other things you mentioned also very costly and probably not very profitable for the big refineries (that’s another thing: crude prices rise not only due to OPEC but to pay for refinery costs, as well as exec salaries). I don’t care to play the Green Doomsday thing, since I admit I’m not a geologist, but at some point in the near future the oil reserves will start to tap out; how it will play out, is, as the pundit-zombies say, anybody’s guess. Getting an ethanol still together in the next few years and modifying the vehicle might be prudent; Walden III: On the Pleasures of the Corn-Mash Mobile.Posted by Mister Toad on 11/01 at 08:04 PM
It looks like you might want to bone up on your accounting and economics.
Adjusting for inflation, the price of crude is LESS today than it was in 1979. It’s about 60% of the 79 price. ITS CHEAPER.
Actually, according to this graph, coupled with the current price of crude ($59 or so) we’re damn near the peak.
If he wants to, he can sell that damm, gas-guzzling SUV and buy a more efficeient car. Enough people do that and the price of oil will be brought into line in quick order.
As a professional accountant/economist, you seem strangely unfamiliar with the Jevons paradox, which clearly states that technological advances in efficiency lead to increased consumption of those resources.
And claiming that leftists/democrats are unconcerned with compensation abuse is simply ignorant.Posted by on 11/01 at 09:37 PM
This is all very interesting to me. I have always wondered what happens when trolls collide.Posted by on 11/01 at 11:46 PM
If one looks at the charts a person would note that Dan failed to mention that crude at that time (’79) had spiked at about $65.00 per barrel because of the bloody Iran-Iraq war: it went way up (making probably millions for a select few “savvy” investors) and then came back down. But since 1998 or so it steadily climbed back up, and spiked again when BushCo invaded Iraq. Now at $60 it’s at 93% of the ‘79 spike.
Since 1998 though crude oil has gone up from $15 to $60. That move which would have earned you, were you a millionaire with the discretionary income to buy in in 1998 with 100 contracts--1000 barrels each x $15., then sold in 2005 at $60.--$450,000 (minus some chump change for trades, brokers and miscellaneous whores), a bit better than any IRA or mutual fund or most stocks. And the real big “players” are in both the commodity and stock markets with a great deal more money than this.
On the consuming end, rather than the speculating end, since gasoline has gone up about a dollar in the last 2 years or so (while inflation has rised at most .10), you are probably spending nearly double what you paid a year ago per month on gas --how many people received a “cost of living” raise even close to that? (Exxon execs did much better than that tho). Maybe there was something to that pinko’s surplus-value theory.Posted by Mister Toad on 11/02 at 12:51 AM
Sorry, that was probably our fault. We’ll take him back now. Come on Mister Toad, you’re not half bad and we do apologize.Posted by Matt on 11/02 at 06:44 AM
>>As a professional accountant/economist, you seem strangely unfamiliar with the Jevons paradox, which clearly states that technological advances in efficiency lead to increased consumption of those resources.
I am neither professional, in any sense, nor am I an economist or accountant. OK, you got me on the relative price, we are not at 60% of the 79 price but at 90%, still my point is valid. Oil and gasoline are cheaper now than they were 25 years ago. So, what crisis?. Sure some speculators have made a fortune in the past year betting that crude will go up, but all the speculators on the other side of the bet lost an equal forture. Commodity speculation is a true zero-sum game. And what of Jevons paradox? You are right, If a million of Americans decide to drive small, fuel-efficient cars that will reduce demand, lowering the price, enabling another million Americans to continue to drive large SUVs at a cheaper price because of the sacrifice of those willing to drive smaller cars. There is no way getting around this unless you adopt a command economy where we have economic czars dictating to the American people what technologies can be used and how much they can be used, and this is not going to happen, not even if the Democrats capture the executive and both houses. It is a futile fantasy to think so. I still don’t get it why any progressive should give a damn about the consumer. Screw the consumer, let him stuff his fat ass untill he chokes in this lumpen luxury. I really wouldn’t mind if gasoline were to reach $5 per gallon, then maybe the roads will be safer for bicylists.
Another point I would like to add, the American left is pathetic, I wouldn’t even summon up the energy to call them hypocrits. I do think that the American left really doesn’t care one whit that a greedy plutocratic class dominates our governmment, as long as their faction in that class run things. What a joke; leftist groupies pining after Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry.Posted by on 11/02 at 12:29 PM
I do think that the American left really doesn’t care one whit that a greedy plutocratic class dominates our governmment, as long as their faction in that class run things
There is a neo-liberal kind of democrat, Kerry for instance, that would fall into this category perhaps, but there are plenty of concerned citizens questioning the corporate plutocracy and the GOP economic policies. Besides better a corrupt Yale fratboy such as Kerry who can speak in complete sentences than a corrupt Yale fratboy, hungover and in need of psychological care, such as Bush Jr.
The BushCo tax breaks for the very wealthy--slashing estate and capital gains taxes--was about the most Toryish economic policy decision since, well, Alex Hamiliton himself. And that is what BushCo economic policy really is about: a sort of hick Toryism, designed by and for those few white boys fortunate or clever enough to have made it into the upper echelons of business, finance or law--the theocratic oligarchy now assembled on the Supreme Court also part of that Toryism. And is it simply coincidence that Exxon, a Texass petrol Corp., is flourishing (because of scarcity or oil-gas price gouging) while our Texass president Dubya-- and former petrol boy--holds the reins? It sure in the heck ain’t.Posted by Mister Toad on 11/02 at 01:52 PM