Jump to navigation
Then Again, and Now, Too
Dateline 14 July 2008, from the New York Daily News
, "President Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling
...President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that [has] stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well...
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President [George H.W.] Bush in 1990...
Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.
Dated 19 June 2008, the USA Today
article, "Bush calls for end to ban on offshore oil drilling
," conveyed the same impression of then-candidate Barack Obama's stance on off-shore drilling:
Barack Obama and fellow Democrats have denounced proposals for offshore drilling as nothing more than a favor to oil companies.
Moving forward to today, 31 March 2010, the Associated Press article, "Recharging debate, Obama expands offshore drilling
," reports stark evidence of the distinction between 2008 Democrat candidate Barack Obama and the policy-maker he has become as President of the United States:
Shaking up years of energy policy and his own environmental backers, President Barack Obama threw open a huge swath of East Coast waters and other protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to drilling Wednesday, widening the politically explosive hunt for more homegrown oil and gas.
Complicating this just a little, according to a U.S. House of Representative sub-domain run by Republicans, on 8 March 2010, President Obama extended a ban on outer continental shelf (OCS) drilling
, effectively constructing a moratorium lasting until at least 2012.
Finally, returning to 2008, readers are offered a closing passage from the 16 June 2008 article, "Energy Horizons
," published here at The Dark Wraith Forums
[M]any nations that are net consumers of fossil fuels will, for the time being, anyway, find that domestic exploration for oil and gas and wars to secure oil and gas fields and distribution routes will remain cost effective. The domestic exploration will necessarily entail conversion and occasional destruction of environmentally sensitive ecosystems, and the wars will necessarily construct, shift, and reconfigure at least some historical alliances... and result in combatant and civilian casualties. On the plus side, both exploration and fighting will lead to technological innovations in both beneficiary civilian and war-making industries... On the negative side, the need for access to more domestic areas of exploration and the requirements of managing states of conflict will entail an acceleration of global trends toward more authoritarian societies... whether the degradations of human and civil rights are open or hidden from common view.
Is the emerging world and its economic, military, and political dynamics complicated? Yes.
Must the world of tomorrow happen with persistently rising energy prices, wars, environmental degradation, and authoritarian management schema? Again, yes. The American people as a body politic seems to learn best through direct application of pain consequential to prior bad choices in leaders and their policies.
Sometimes, learning requires multiple applications of pain-inducing consequences...
In November of 2008, the choice of roads to the future seemed quite obvious. As it turned out, those two roads converged in a wilderness.
Betrayal is merely inevitability by another name.
Obama needs to open a new bottle of 'Hope'.
We're getting close to election time again. It's time to start telling whoppers so that people can start hoping again.
Good afternoon, Weaseldog.
In some cases, the magnitude of deceptions must increase in order to maintain loyalty of the constituent base.
In other cases, however, only small deceptions are necessary in the second round. Having been wildly disappointed by the chasm between words and actions the first time, loyalists will subsequently accept considerably less extraordinary promises, believing that these more modest vows are more likely to be earnest, honest, and achievable, especially when he is framed in contest with nearly insurmountable forces acting against his will.
Having made smaller promises, and having some evidence that he really can be trusted to keep his word, the master of politics will then open the chasm once again, creating even more distance between these new, small promises and his actions that will follow.
Having been fooled not once, but twice, why worry about loyalty based upon measurable performance? — the followers have shown that it is not their leader's vision that matters at all to their decision to hold to him, but rather their own hope of what his vision meant to him, thwarted so often as he was by conspiracy, madmen, and naysayers.
Mr. Obama came through with his promise on health care reform. Whether or not he really did is quite beside the point: his loyalists believe he did in the face of people, corporations, and other interests so bad that they could be genuinely cast as vile, if not evil.
His smattering of liberal successes will be more than enough to ensure that, in the end, his base will forgive his much broader, brightly obvious performance as a post-neoconservative.
He need make few allies among Right-wingers, corporatists, Republicans, conservatives, and others who once and now fight him. He has his base, and it will not abandon him.
After all, just like the abused spouse who occasionally gets dinner and a show from her abuser, where is she to go if she leaves him? Besides, he took her out to Denny's last week, and he didn't hit her at all for a while when he really needed her support after the cops came because the neighbors called them.
Patterns of history, at least sometimes, are not nearly as important to notice as patterns of human behavior.
The Battered Spouse Syndrome seems to be a good explanation for the faithful in both parties. And you're right, Obama can't possibly act according to his perceived moral and ethical convictions, because the evildoers won't let him.
I got that argument a lot, leading up the the election. I pointed out that Senator Obama was constantly lying about his intentions. He kept giving great speeches about opposing the bush Doctrine, then he'd go snuggle up in bed with bush and rove when the cameras were off.
His faithful explained to me that Senators don't have the power to make their own decisions or act according to their ethical and moral beliefs. But once Obama became president, he'd have the power to show us that he's a good man, that is simply being forced by his owners, to do evil deeds.
Evidently, Presidents don't have the power to decide how they will live their lives either.
Does this mean that men like you and I have more power, because we are free to honor our commitments and work to build our lives for a moral and ethical foundation?
Is Obama really wearing shackles and chains while being forced to do the Man's dirty work as his apologists explain? A good and honest man who has decided to devote his life to the service of evil, for the glory of being president? That really doesn't sound like a rational view, does it?
Or is the real Obama just a corrupt lying politician?
I think the latter is the simplest explanation.
He's done a great job in selling the Insurance Bailout Tax. I mean to say, Health Care Reform. As his supporters are saying, anything is better than what we have now. Even if though it seems to be worse than what we have, it's better because it's change. Hope and Change are always good things, even when they are bod things.
Here's an on topic song I wrote a while back.
The Kitchen Floor
I misspoke on the radio show this evening. I meant to say "brother and sister" not "brother and wife". Duh. I'm sorry.
(What a doofus am I!)
The following by Joe Bageant echoes and reinforces both WD's and DW's observations, methinks:
Americans are hope fiends. We always see hope somewhere down every road, chiefly because honestly looking at the present situation would destroy just about everything we hold as reality. Personally, as I often state and catch readership hell for, I do not like hope. When Obama ran it up the flagpole for us to salute, and so many saluted, my blood chilled. Made me feel that we were all in deeper shit than I had supposed (Nevertheless, I reluctantly voted for Obama. At the time it seemed It was either Obama, or continuing war, debt, and diminishing civil liberties. Ha!) Hope is magic thinking, believing that somehow, some larger unknown force is in motion to set things right.
The world is what it is, and its injustices are set right by peoples and nations morally intact enough to challenge its malevolent forces.
Hope is political pabulum for an infantilized nation.
So get ready to swallow another heapin' helpin', boys and girls!
Become a Registered Commenter