Mitch Gann’s

“Oil hike sparks ’serious concern’” (BBC News):

The US and the four largest economies in Asia are to voice “serious concerns” over “unprecedented” oil prices. Energy ministers are meeting in Japan a day after a record one-day jump in the crude oil price, to $139 a barrel.

I also would like to voice “serious concerns.” Indeed, I am also going to voice “serious irritation.”

Later in the same article, we get this:

On Saturday, US energy secretary Samuel Bodman said the price surge was a “shock” but not a crisis, amid fears the oil price spike could help tip some of the world’s economies into recession.

Personally, I would not voice “shock” because I filled my tank on Thursday. However, I am raising my irritation level to “very.”  After that the only stage left is pissed.

It’s been a long week.  I intended to blog more, but life got in the way.

And while I was focused on the mundane details of life, oil prices shot up $11 bucks a barrel and Barack and Hillary held a late-night tete-a-tete.

What the world needs is a pause-button.

Over at the Huffington Post, blogger Kathleen Reardon is pondering the question “Why let McCain win?”

Why would a Hillary Clinton supporter vote for McCain? It does seem ludicrous. After all, he represents four to eight more years of George W. Bush. The country can’t afford that. What would prompt a Hillary supporter, especially a Democrat, to even consider backing such a despicable outcome?

Reardon has no answer to her question. Her real purpose is to promote Clinton as the Dem’s VP candidate, which she thinks would take away any excuse for Clinton’s supporters to vote for McCain instead of Obama.

So I will step into the breach and tell you why some of Clinton’s supporters will vote for McCain. First, they may figure that whoever is unlucky enough to be elected President this year will have a hopeless task on his hands, and will not be re-elected in four years. Better that be McCain than Obama. Then Clinton can run again before she reaches McCain’s advanced stage of “experience.” Second, some Clinton voters may actually value experience above youthfulness. Those voters will obviously lean heavily toward McCain. Third, some Clinton backers may not view McCain as another Bush, and therefore may not view his election as a “despicable outcome.” This makes sense if you see both McCain and Clinton as moderates, and Obama as far to the left of center. Fourth, some of Clinton’s supporters simply cannot stand Obama. I don’t know why exactly. Is it racism? Is it a matter of personality and style? Is it that they did not get to go to Harvard? Beats me, but there is a genuine antipathy out there.

Personally, I don’t care if Clinton is Obama’s running mate or not. Who votes for a VP? I’m just offering some answers to the question Reardon posed.

This isn’t new news, but I can’t resist it.

“Personality Predictors of Intelligence Change from Younger to Older Adulthood” (Science Daily):

In the cognitively superior older group, who outperformed both the cognitively comparable older adults and the younger adults on every ability tested, “agreeableness was found to have a contrary relationship with general knowledge suggesting that a disagreeable nature may go hand in hand with better vocabulary and knowledge retention in older age,” said [Thomas] Baker. This result supports previous research that suggests that those who are highly intelligent may be more aloof and independent.

The research study was conducted by Thomas Baker MA, of York University and Jacqueline Bichsel PhD, of Pennsylvania State University, and reported on in 2006.

Hat tips: As I was saying and Time Goes By.