Who doesn't care about facts...

So MEDIAMATTERS... LOL... Sorry... You can't make this stuff up.  Check out this Epic Graph-FAIL on the part of Fox News:

 Problems?  Well...

They included the average state tax of about 23 cents per gallon both in the category "state" taxes and in the category "state & local" taxes. The total of both state and local taxes is 30.4 cents on average. Fox also placed $3.83 at the bottom, as if taxes are in addition to the price for gasoline. But the $3.83 figure already includes the taxes. (MMFA)

An ACCURATE graph, using correct numbers and scale however, ins't nearly as compelling:

But, hey, why use accurate numbers when discussing an issue as important as tax subsidies going to our single largest (in terms of PROFIT) industry? This is particularly sad, because there are many perfectly legitimate ways to manipulate a graph (playing with the scale on the Y-AXIS, for example) in order to emphasise a point.  You really shouldn't have to out-and-out LIE and CHEAT with bullshit data.

Speaking of PROFITS, apparently, ExxonMobil would have you believe that they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Which... anyone who's not a complete idiot should realize is a just about a mathematic impossibility... Unless of course you count the taxes paid by the CONSUMER at the pump!  Which I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with, seriously, if the Right wasn't also trying to make the case that lowering Federal Gas TAXES would lower the PRICE of Gas. If ExxonMobil is counting those taxes - paid by us - as a lost revenue opportunity for them, I think it's pretty clear what would happen to the price Gas if those taxes were lowered or repealed:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And that's according to ExxonMobil's own talking point!

The only thing that would happen? The ExxonMobil's of the world would report more profit, still receive billions in tax subsidies, and the rest of us would not only pay exactly the same price at the pump, but we'd also see our property and state income taxes go up substantially in order to make up for the lost revenue our states were once using to maintain our roads.  Well, I don't know about YOU, but I think the ExxonMobil's of the world are taking a big enough chuck out of my paycheck as it is.  So I say: screw 'em. I pay MY taxes, they should sure as hell pay theirs.

--------------------------------

(And before anyone brings up subsidies for Electric Cars or Alternative Energy, let me say that I don't have any problem with eliminating those as well.  Let's just make sure that EVERYONE pays their fair share of taxes, and that BIG OIL covers the FULL COST of our continued consumption of their product, which they currently... what's the industry term? Oh yeah: EXTERNALIZE. Which is a fancy way of saying "fucks everybody else with it.")

News About the Chevy Volt

So I'm grabbing lunch today and I happen to pick up a copy of this week's "Tech Center News"- basically an industry rag that you can get for free, usually at Donut Shops or Gas Stations.  And I'm reading an article that I would like to share with you all regarding the Cheverolet Volt.  Called "Volt Is Not a Political Punching Bag."

First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car.  And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.

A little math, and I'll get back to the article.  The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car.  So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points!  For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser.  But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas.  And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day.  But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS.  Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range!  So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...?  Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start!  See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea.  Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all.  The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas.  It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.

SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt.  See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...

Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them.  How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story.  Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.

The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire.  Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!

I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes.  But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP.  It NEEDED repairs.  And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car!  But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:

"[...] as one of our customers put it: If they couldn't cut him out of the vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about."

 

And that's it. This? Is NOT A PROBLEM. "Fire" might make for a good story, but it a non-issue here, folks!  Do you what GM has to do about this? Precisely NOTHING. (Although they still are reinforcing the battery.)  But in all seriousness? As a bit of an industry  insider? Alert the mechanics that the coolant could be flammable if allowed to sit on the battery terminal for several days and that's pretty much IT.

Here are some FACTS about the Volt:

For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.

For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.

And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:

OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a  Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right?  But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.

Now... At $45,000...?

Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!

...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!

Interesting Article, needs a better title...

Sorry for all the cracked.com article lately.  The real world is just so frustrating & depression that, yes, I've spent most of my time reading a comedy site that specializes in dick jokes.  BUT... They do do a good job writing pieces that are political in nature, although they (1) hardly ever realize it, and (2) IMHO, try VERY hard not to be liberal.  (Which makes them almost as bad as the MSM, but Cracked at least does some actual... what's the word?  Oh yeah: RESEARCH!)

Anyway, here's a really good piece on environmentalism, or rather, it sounds that way from the title: The 5 Biggest Backfires in the History of Disaster Relief.  BUT, if they had any real balls, and weren't so afraid of being accused of being liberal (or just embracing the liberalism that lies right beneath the surface of 99% of what they do, even though they can't bring themselves to just come out and admit it) they might called it: Four Ways Conservatives and Industry Fucked Up the Environment Even Worse, and what Happens when one Liberal Starts Acting Like a Conservative.

Or maybe: What Happens when Conservatives do a Half-Assed Job of Being Liberal and when a Liberal Out-Conservatives the Conservatives.

Read it with one of THOSE (far more accurate) titles in mind, and enjoy.  The moral: Industrialism, Unilateralism and Conservatism SUCKS, and people really need to start LISTENING to environmentalists.

This was very distrubing....

Driving into work this morning, I head this story on NPR.  I found it very disturbing; a sign of just how far this country has devolved.  I'm not sure if I should hope Mister Obama is aware of what's going on or not.  It's a sad state of affairs to be sure.


First of all... Why the fuck are BP employees calling the shots here?! Why are they standing side by side with our coast guard and police force? Are you fucking kidding me?! This is NOT what's meant by "civilian control of the military!" This has been going for some time now, and it grows ever more disturbing as time goes on. Welcome to 1984, folks. If you ever wanted to see the freedom of the press utterly destroyed, well HERE YOU GO. It’s just like George Carlin once predicted: When fascism finally comes to this country, it won’t be wearing jack-boots, it will be wearing Nike’s.

A few points, that highlight the absolute absurdity of this, from the transcript:

"You are not allowed, as a police officer, to rummage through the notebooks and photographs — not published — of newspapers," Engelberg said. "That's not how we do it in this country."

Well said, Mister Engelberg. Have you contacted the ACLU yet?

"We have more than 40,000 people working on this response," [BP spokesman Scott Dean] said. "We're working around the clock to make this situation right. And we very much want that story to be told."

Yeah – they sure do: THEIR VERSION of the story. How else does he explain away the fact that the press has been HINDERED by HIS OWN company from telling the story?! This man is not only a whore, he’s a cheap whore, and doesn’t even try to hide the fact.

The flap in Texas City over the police stop of the Pro Publica photographer involves practices initiated in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. FBI Special Agent Shauna Dunlap, of the agency's Houston field office, said that such stops have become common around sensitive sites like refineries and nuclear power plants.

"People don't think about it, but there are people out there who want to do us harm, and it's our obligation to protect our territory and these critical infrastructures that are targets," Dunlap said

Riiight… I’m sure an already demolished oil well, 5000 feet below sea level, is a really high level target on Al-Quaeda’s hit list.

...adding that the oil company had also been threatened by what she said were environmental terrorists.

"There is a heightened security around those facilities, especially with BP," Dunlap said.

Oh, I get it. It’s environmental terrorism, they're worried about. Because, yeah, again, they’d accomplish SO MUCH by screwing up the cleanup effort, after the rig had burned down, sunk, and spilled X-Million barrels of oil into the gulf. Yeah, that’s when they "eco-terrorists" would SPRING INTO ACTION.

Is our FBI really this stupid, or are they just blatantly insulting our intelligence? If "eco-terrorism" was involved AT ALL, it would have been at the BEGINNING, when the rig was still WORKING. Now, it was already shown that the initial fire was entirely the result of BP’s own negligence.  That’s been clearly established.  And that’s was the only possible oppotunity for “eco-terrorism.” Destroy the RIG. (Something that is completely without precedent, I might add!)  Not showing up three months later and sabotaging the CLEANUP. That doesn’t make any damned sense at all!

This situation is now nothing more than corporatism using out irrational fear of terrorism to PREVENT the real story from being told here. (Behold your LIBERAL MEDIA!) And the only really terrifying thing going on here, is just how much this FOREIGN (not even US-based!) corporate entity can manipulate our gov’t into doing its bidding, even getting them to violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

No only should BP’s heads roll over this (and as far as I’m concerned, that BP Corporate Whore Scott Dean should be boiled in crude-oil as an example to other professioanl liars) but there needs to be some serious investigations into the gov’t actions here; Not in dealing with the spill itself, as the right have hypocritically called for, I’ll stand by my earlier judgment that President Obama is doing exactly what he should be in terms of the cleanup, (althought how would I know otherwise, seeing as how the press has been largely shut out?!) but of the way the Coast Guard, FBI and Police have denied press access, intimidated the press, rifled though their private property without warrant or propbable cause and have conspired with BP to keep the Public minimally informed at best, and misinformed at worst. Heads should roll over that.

Hey right-wingers? THIS is what “big government” or "big borther" REALLY looks like: Corporate interests being protected over public ones. 

Yet another Oil Spill...

I heard about yet another oil-spill related, ongoing travesty on NPR this morning. This one is in Peru, in the Amazon Rain Forrest, and has been going on for the past 30 years. Here is a transcript of the program. As with the 50 year travesty going on in the Niger Delta, I urge every one to read this story as well.

I’ll say it again: THIS INSANITY NEEDS TO END.

My favorite part of the whole debacle might be the response of Peru’s President, Alan Garcia:

When indigenous communities began to take a stand against big companies operating in their territory, President Alan Garcia wrote an editorial criticizing their position. He used the fable "The Dog and the Manger" to make his point.

In the story, a dog falls asleep in a manger and wakes up to bark at the cows who want to eat the hay — even though the dog himself can't eat the stuff. The moral of the story is: Don't begrudge others something you can't enjoy yourself. In the editorial, the hay was Peru's natural riches, and the president compared the spiteful dog to Peru's indigenous people.

Apparently the conservatives in Peru are no less whores to industry than the conservatives here are. The flaw in this idiot’s analogy would be that the problem is not that the "cows" want to "eat the hay"... It's that they want to shit in the manger!

Now THERE’S an analogy you won’t see on the mainstream media!

NYT Article on the Oil Spill... and NOT the one in the Gulf!

Some great comments from y'all in the oil spill piece.  I want to thank everyone for taking the time to read and comment on it. 

The NYT ran a piece about the oil contamination that's been going on in the Niger Delta for about tha last 50 years now.  Unbelieveable. I urge everyone to read that.  And remeber the term, "externalization of cost" the next time someone tells you how "cheap" oil is as an energy sorce: It's cheap because these companies never have to pay to clean up after themselves afterwards.

This insanity needs to end.  Electric Cars, Solar, wind... I favor Nuclear myself, in the near-term anyway.  But the "burning shit" model (oil, coal) of generating power needs to end.

More on (Moron) the Oil Spill...

Eric Bohlert of MMFA had a great piece today, comparing today's coverage of Obama in the Gulf spill, to the coverage of President Bush ('41) following the Exxon Valdez spill.  I'd like to vent a little more about that.

I’m getting a little bit tired of the criticism being leveled at Obama over this spill. Not because I think he’s been perfect, or because I think he above criticism, but because the criticism has largely been completely lacking in any substance at all. More and more, for both sides, I’m hearing pundits whine about the tone he’s taking, the priority he’s giving it, whether or not he should have called for prayer… basically BULLSHIT. Not one person, that I’ve heard, has come out and said, “He should have done [this]” or “He should be DOING [this].” Well, there’s one: Gov. Bobby Jindal and his damned sand burms. But in that case the Army Corps of Engineers deemed the plan to be an ineffective waste of a scarce resource they’d need to deal with the disaster later on. Now… I had no idea that SAND was so fucking precious, but I’m not about to argue with the Army Corps of Engineers, and Governor Jindal is certainly in no position to. (The day I start asking lawmakers for engineering judgments, I’ll start asking engineers for legal advice!)


And don’t get me wrong: Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann and both entitled to their opinions and are paid to give them. If nothing else, their comments show that MSNBC is hardly just the liberal version of Fox. Remember: They were willing to criticize the President here, just as they were willing to criticize the Democrats during the health care debate. Despite their unwillingness to adopt the Right’s love of the far Right and blind hatred of Obama and the Democrats, they’ve shown themselves to be more objective politically than Fox has ever done.

But I’m still sick of this “His TONE wasn’t stern enough.” WTF?! Is there some tone of voice he can use to plug the hole? Do really think that him ranting and raving (and threatening?!) like a lunatic would somehow “motivate” BP to get its act together? That’s nonsense! BP is TRYING. It’s not that I like BP, right now I hate them, but there’s no doubt in my mind that THEY’RE DOING ALL THEY CAN at this point! Yes: Obviously they could have done more last month, last year, 5 years ago and 10 years ago. But they’re not sitting on some magic cure all at the moment! They simply do not have the technology to deal with this, because it DOESN’T EXSIST. They’re already running around, Apollo-13 style, trying to make the cap for [this] fit onto the pipe for [that] using [this stuff.] They’re not going to make up for 30 years of the industry’s use of inadequate technology in a week just because Obama found the right tone. And his tone is all they got, because there is nothing more, that I’m aware, that Obama can actually DO here. The coast guard was mobilized on day one. The National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved from day 1. If there’s something OBAMA is supposed to be doing, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?! (And if you say “sand burms” I’m going to punch you, and the refer you to an earlier piece I wrote, with a lot of capitalized expletives in it.)

But they HAVE to make this BAD for Obama. The oil lobby cannot afford for this to be “Obama’s 9/11” (for energy policy) so it’s got to be “Obama’s Katrina.” And they’ll find any way to MAKE IT that. Yeah… I’m finding the analogies to be getting a bit moronic as well. You know what this is? It’s Obama’s GULF OIL SPILL. That’s it. It’s not 9/11 (sorry, Mr. president) it’s not Katrina (sorry pundits) and most ironically of all, consider the source, it’s certainly not “Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis.”

That last one came from Rush Limbaugh, IIRC, presumably because constantly calling it “Obama’s Katrina” keeps reminding people of BUSH’s Katrina. So… better to find a Democrat’s debacle to compare it to. I think it’s telling that they had to go back over THIRTY YEARS to FIND one, but even so they couldn’t have picked a worse example. Because the LAST THING the pro-oil conservatives really want here would be for a well respected newscaster, today’s “Walter Kronkite” (though I’m not really sure who that would even BE) to be counting the days, and reminding people, on a nightly basis, what a huge disaster this is. Not that is would make much of a difference, I think most people have a pretty shrewd idea anyway, but “today marks the umpti-fifth day since the oil started flowing into the Gulf” would NOT help their cause any.

I’ll judge Obama’s "performance" on this based on the legislation that comes out of it. If he can get up to start to leave the path were on, and start to embrace clean energy and sustainable behavior? Then he’ll get top marks from me, regardless of the tone he uses.

My Note to BP Pensioners: Go pound oily sand!

Speaking of Britain, there was rather a lot of criticism of the Obama administration for calling on BP to suspend it’s dividend payments until the damages related it’s oil spill are paid for. Now… I’m not completely heartless on this issue. I break with the mainstream liberal voice when it comes to taxing dividends for the very same reason that this criticism was being leveled: The broadest beneficiaries of those dividend payments are pension finds, and retires who actually depend on that income. (Well, that and it’s double taxation, but I don’t feel like giving the moon-bats here a lesson in basic Accounting right now, so we’ll go with “sympathy for old people” for the time being.) The rhetoric of the British Pensioners has been largely along the lines of “Hey America, don’t fuck with my retirement income! You want the oil? You PAY FOR it!”

Hey, British Pensioners? GO POUND OIL SATURADTED SAND!

First of all: We DO pay for it. BP has never been in the business of giving oil away for free to anyone. If they don’t charge enough to cover the cost of contingency plans? Not really OUR problem. I’ll get to the phenomenon of “externalization of costs” in a moment, but I’d have no problem with a MODEST gas tax increase (nothing like the nonsense they have in Europe however) which, considering how much gas we burn, would go a long way to getting more research done, and getting these kinds of things cleaned up. The cost is ultimately borne by the consumer anyway (again, see “externalization of costs”) so whether it’s in the form of a tax, or a price hike which the company would pretty much pocket ANYWAY, I’m all for it. And right now, so are most Americans. One Republican vote in the Senate is all that stands between our newly lubricated shoreline and the beginning of real energy reform.

Second of all: While I sympathize with your loss of income, you must also realize that it is TEMPORARY. That may not be the case for much of the fishing industry in the gulf. Businesses has been destroyed, people have lost everything, and that's before you even factor in the long-term ecological damage, the cost to repair the coasts and the long term economic effects that moving away from Gulf Oil Drilling. Long story short? Our problems are more expensive than yours, and have been CAUSED by a BRITISH company, operated in violation of both what would be the required safety protocols in Europe, and what is accepted industry practice over here. As it is our Government is pursuing a case of Criminal Negligence against BP, its case bolstered by BP’s own internal documents and BP company insiders. I’ve heard more than one legal expert describe the criminal case against BP as a “slam dunk.” So before you open your gobs, consider for a moment what you’d be calling for if an AMERICAN firm had violated your industry standards, fouled your beaches and destroyed your coastal industries, all in pursuit of greater profits for themselves and their shareholders. Somehow I don’t think the plight of the average AMERICAN pensioner would be very high on your list of priorities. And rightly so. NOW STIFLE!

Oh yeah: EXTERNALIZATION OF COST. This is the phenomenon that allows many of these companies to make claims like “oil produces the cheapest energy on a per volume basis” and things like that. There are two reasons why this statement is “true.” (Notice the “quotes?”) ONE is that they make arbitrary assumptions about the pay-off period for solar energy. Now I’m not sure what a given “volume” of solar energy (sunshine) looks like, but I do know that it is not a fuel being consumed. (Next time you here this, challenge one of thes efools to show you what a gallon of sunshine looks like!)  Which means, on a usage basis: It’s FREE. So the only way they can assume a “cost” on a per unit of energy generated basis, would be to amortize the manufacturing cost of a solar panel over its life. And what do they assume for its life? Well, whatever they need to to make oil sound cheaper, of course! The other reason is the “externalization of cost.” This is the fact that they do not include in the cost of their products, the costs associated with disasters, pollution, clean-up, global warming and other environmental impacts. The costs, unless the company is exceedingly generous in volunteering to take on, are largely paid by SOMEONE ELSE. And that’s how they want to keep it. If they can keep those costs EXTERNALIZED (off their books, and thus out of the business case) they not only can keep raking in record profits, but also make the case that OIL IS CHEAPER. Pollition CONTROL sosts the company. POLLUTION usually costs everybody else.  The same goes for coal, and just about every other industry that pollutes: As long as someone else cleans up the mess? Their business case is sound. And for the past 30 years, the three Republican administrations and the Republican Congress which dominated the lone Democratic one (until now) has been more than happy to ignore the problem and support this practice. 

I hope Obama has the courage to do otherwise. I’ll pay the tax, and to hell with any whiny pensioners. I’ve got a word of advice for you lot: DIVERSIFICATION.

The New Republican Logo

I'm glad to see that BP is finally making SOME progress in closing off that well.  Hopefully I didn't just jinx it!

In any case, a few posts back I suggested revising the Republican Party's Logo, to go along with the whole "Bay of Rigs" thing.  (Which, despite having been the brainchild of Rush Limbaugh, I still say is funny as hell!)  Anyway, I'd like to share my proposal with you all.  Here it is:

Feel free to forward that image to whomever you like.  If you can manage to remember to tell them where you got it from, that'd be really great, K? 

The Bay of Rigs

Rush Limbaugh must have been a fantastic bully in grade school.  And I don't just say that as one of the typical liberal attacks on the man.  I say that because if he has a singular skill, something he's just REALLY GOOD at, it's making up goofy names for things that stick in people's heads.  He was like that kid in school (usually the bully or one of his lackey's) that could find some rhyming, vulgar perversion of pretty much ANYONE'S name. Something that made a really catchy chant or something. Remember: This is the guy who coined terms like Feminazi, Testicle Lockbox, etc...  Most of these are just purile and offensive of course, but evey now and then - credit where it's due - there are some real gems.

Fruit of Kaboom?  Come on... admit it, that's pretty funny.

And his latest - Obama's "Bay of Rigs?"  Come on - that's pretty clever, no?  I mean, yeah... It missies the mark completely and is a pretty pathetic attempt to blame Obama for... what?  Not banning all off-shore drilling, and hence given them a change to portray as some kind of paranoid environmentalist for not allowing the practice that led to the disaster that they're now trying to blame on him... You know what? Let's not even try to follow thier "reasoning" there.  So much circular login and catch-22's make me dizzy.  Gives me a headache. 

But "Bay of Rigs" is still way better than the media once again trotting out "Obama's Waterloo." I mean...How many Waterloo's can one fascist, communist dictator HAVE anyway?  If Napolean was allowed this many Waterloo's, he could have taken over the entire world.    Or "Obama's Katrina."  I don't recall 20,000 people, 1,300 vessels and [the hurricaine equivalent of] almost 2 Million feet of containment boom being sent to 17 different staging areas to protect said areas during Katrina.  I remember some Jackass from Texas doing a fly-by, playing air guitar and saying "heckova job, Brownie."  They may WANT this to be Obama's "Katrina" - as in, the moment that the public starts to turn on him in a big way, like they did on Bush.  There's only one problem: You can't just SAY "Katrina" over and over again and somehow make it so.  There needs to be a collossal fuck-up on his part (you know, kind of like during Hurricane Katrina?) for the meme to have any teeth. 

As for the "Waterloo" comparison?  This is far more likely to be BP's "Waterloo" or the Oil Indusury's "Waterloo" or Off-Shore Drilling's "Waterloo" than Obama's.  I mean... who was the Party of "Drill Baby Drill"?  Who's the party that's always poo-pooing environmentalistrs, government regulators, industry watchdogs, etc... I'm telling you.  This should be the REPUBLICANS' "Waterloo" or - since they're all a bunch of cowboys, and they hate French so much anyway - the Republicans' "Alamo."  (Considering how much they all  "remember the Alamo" it's funny that they always seem to forget that we LOST at the Alamo. LOL)

Do you know what I'd be doing from now until November if I were runnign for office as a Democrat?  I'd be constantly running a commercial which starts out with the Drill-Baby-Drill chant, complete with the most recognizable icons of the Republican Party (Palin, Bush, the guy I'd be running against...) and have it slowly morph so that by the end the chant has changed to SPILL, BABY SPILL.  Maybe turn the Republican Logo into something like this:

(Mastodons stuck in the Tar Pits)

Because this disaster can only REALLY be a problem for the Republicans.  There's no way to completely pevent something like from happening and, as BP has been busy proving for the last month, there's no way to fix it if it does.  About the time this shit starts washing up on the beaches of the British Isles, maybe people will start realizing what a disastrous energy policy it really is!  And they're the ones that have been puching so hard for it all these decades!  Heckuva of a job, Pub's!

But there's something here that the conservative mind can't seem to wrap it's head around: It's not about what happens on who's watch.  Nor is it the PERSON who makes a policy good or bad.  If you ever bring up George W. Bush to a conservative, many are quick to acknowledge the failure of the MAN, even as they aregue for the very policies he supported!  It's like the problem was just Bush and Bush alone and not the policies he advocated for - like, oh, I don't know... Scrapping Kyoto and pushing for expanded drilling, perhaps?  And they assume that we think the same way - that we flocked to Obama on the basis of the man alone.  That somehow if they could just tarnish the Obama brand, people will go back to their brand.  And granted... some will.  Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have made a career out of this phenonmenon.  But what is lost of these fools is that Liberals never viewed Obama as this Messiah figure that they tried to lampoon him as.  He could never be our George W. Bush, becuase we never invested so much of our faith and hope in him they way they did with Bush.  We have no problem criticizing Obama. In fact... the more liberal you are, the more likely it seems that you'd be willing to take him to task.  But they just don't get this.  They just don't understand that we don't follow our politicians in a sheep-like manner the way they do.  That's the Democrat's biggest problem as a party: No unity!  The Republican's all march in lockstep, and yet somehow WE'RE the "sheep!" WTF?

Now granted... Obama probably has SOME egg on his face for announcing expanded of shore drilling a mere two (?) weeks before the exploision that kicked off this disaster.  But this rig's permit was not granted as a result of that statement and you can bet he's going to go back on that statement big time moving forward.  Otherwise this really would be  his "Waterloo."  And Rush Limbaugh can whine all he wants how how environmentalists are "happy" about this disaster.  We get no satisafaction out of saying "I told you so."  What can't be ignored is that we were right, they were wrong, and our ENERGY POLICY needs to change.  The short term damage is now every bit as serious and the long-term consequences.  But the public needs to be constantly reminded who was REALLY advocating for this policy.  Becuase it's not just about WHO is in charge, but WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  And "more of the same" should no longer be palatable to ANYONE.

"Bay of Rigs" is still pretty funny though...  Let's just make sure it's appled to the Republicans, K?

The Oil Rig

I want to re-post here a comment that I left on Media Matters today regarding the media's meme that this will be Obama's "Katrina." (The line in italics comes from  DellDolly's post RE Bush's handloing of Katrina:

But they didn't do all that they should have done until after the damage was done.


You're being generous. They didn't do ANYTHING AT ALL until a few days AFTER the damage was done. And even THEN they didn't do all they should have, let alone could have.

Katrina served as the trigger for the public's loss of faith in Bush. It was the point at which it was no longer sacrilidge to openly quetsion the Iraq War, and it was at that point that the image of Bush as our fearless, stoic, post-9/11 leader begans to crumble. And as it also kicked of the ridiculously high gas prices that started the ball rolling on the recession (which came early in Michigan, where I live) it also led to the dismantling of the myth that these clown could run the economy any better as well.

This will undoubtedly NOT be Obama's finest hour, especially coming a week or so after expandging offshore drilling! But the response thus far and the continued support that will undoubtedly come, has put and will continue to put Bush's Katrina responce to shame. This WILL have a net positive effect on Obama's approval rating in a regionof the country that is otherwose, arguably the most hostile. Could he win LA, MS or AL against a drill-baby-drill Republican in 2012? It's possible. We'll see...

But in the meantime, I dare the Republicans to try and block ANY of the aid and services he sends to the region.

This is not Obama's "Katirna." It's closer (not quite there, but closer) to Obama's "9/11." 

Now, she did go on to point out that I was exageratting in saying that he did NOTHING, and I AM, but not by a whole lot.

I bring this up, becuase there will likely be a lot of discussion in the near future regarding chanegs in energy and environmental policy.  That's the silver lining in all of this: that there may finally be some serious political will on the part of the public to, at a minimum, impose some serious and stringent (and long overdue) regulations on the oil industry.  Now... I'm not celebrating this disater: Make no mistake, it IS a disaster.  And it's sad that it typically takes a disaster to change public opinion.  It's equally sad that our commitment to that change tends to fade over time.  But if this causes Obama to back track some of that expanded drilling? AND get serious about alternative energy?  Maybe for the next few months this short-term disaster will repriortize our thinking so that our short-sighted greed won't continue to trump our long-term interests so easily.