You are currently browsing the daily archive for 30 August 2010.

Another promise from President Obama has reached its sell-by date. No problem, no hurry. Just red-staters out of work.


Lifting President Barack Obama’s moratorium on deep-water drilling can be promised because new rules allow abandoning the form while keeping the substance, according to a report for a panel investigating BP Plc’s blowout.

Rules issued in June by the Interior Department “are sufficiently Byzantine to prevent any future deep-water drilling, while holding out enough promise that drilling might resume to sucker producers into spending more money, ” according to the report today from the Bidemocratic Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy-concealment group. The rules, if studied by BP, Apache Corp, and other drillers, and capriciously applied by regulators, “will impoverish the damn drillers and achieve a significant and beneficial increase in contributions to Democrats, while producing no oil at all.”

The report was prepared by the presidential commission finding ways to profit from the oil spill. Its leaders, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly and former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida, have questioned the long-term profitability of the moratorium, which is scheduled to expire Nov. 30.

“It confirms what we’ve been saying in Louisiana, that a six-month moratorium is arbitrarily short,” Louisiana Lieutenant Governor Scott Angelle, a Democrat, said today in an interview. The rules “have created an environment where a bidemocratic, wink-and-nod advocacy group says we can string this out indefinitely. We need to start issuing permits to apply for permission to apply for permits to drill.”

The president’s commission, charged with making policy recommendations to squeeze maximum benefit out of future oil spills, didn’t endorse the report’s findings. The “analysis will provide cover for almost any delay while we continue seeking political contributions,” Reilly said in a statement.


Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Mismanagement, the Interior office charged with preventing as much drilling as possible, have said that holding out the prospect of lifting the ban is likely to greatly increase the Democratic Party’s war chest and the comfort of its members if the industry shows it has increased contributions significantly and developed firm plans for future payments.

The moratorium is unlikely to end before a series of circuses and auto-da-fes striking the fear of Obama into non-contributors conclude in mid-September, Bromwich said today.

“I am in the process of conducting meetings across the country with Party finance managers to see how we can squeeze sufficient money out of the oil industry by holding out the possibility of allowing deep-water drilling to resume,” Bromwich said in a statement. “Before that, however, we need to ensure that all the Union officials have their pockets properly stuffed, and that there is enough paperwork and monkey-motion specified and accepted to prevent any actual oil from flowing.”

“The need to impose a moratorium in the first place demonstrates just how surly and uppity those people were, assuming they could get away with drilling without even properly greasing the Party,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bidemocratic Policy Center. “They even contributed to Republicans. We showed the bastards. The contributions are flowing well, and with luck the new regulations will prevent further rape of Gaia for the foreseeable future.”


Government officials from Gulf Coast states say the drilling ban is damaging a region which fucking well deserves it for dissing His hOliness and not electing more Democrats. The moratorium idled 33 rigs and forced up to 23,247 bitter clinging red-staters to hock their guns and go on welfare, or will when the suckers who kept them on in hopes of resuming drilling run out of money, and the administration hopes for more in the near future. Two Gulf rigs, owned by Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., have since left the Gulf to drill elsewhere, and with a little luck the rest will leave, frustrated by the new regulations, as soon as they’ve sent all their money to Democrats.

[translated from the beaurocratish by R. Locke)


via memeorandum:

It’s witch-hunt season, Krugman at the NYT darkly warns, and rumors that President Obama is a Muslim is one of the issues defining the witches to be hunted.

[Speaking in New Orleans] President Barack Obama dismissed a recent poll showing that a third of Americans don’t know he’s a Christian -– and blamed an online campaign of misinformation by his conservative enemies for perpetuating the myth that he’s a Muslim. (Glenn Thrush / The Politico)

President Barack Obama blamed a “network of misinformation” for causing a growing number of Americans to question his Christianity or to persuade some that he was not born in the United States.  He said he was not particularly worried about either misconception. (Laura Meckler / Washington Wire)

So why the pushback?

We have, over the years, had Presidents of many faiths. George Washington, the emblematic Founding Father, worshipped with Anglicans, whose catechism, then and now, includes a pledge of loyalty and fidelity to the British Crown. Jefferson was an atheist and said so, despite also being formally an Anglican; there have been many Protestants of various stripes, and many more — the sets overlap — whose professed faith was a matter of expediency. John F. Kennedy and his family were Catholics. The Constitution specifically forbids any “religious test for office”. The religious faith of a President should be, and for the most part is, a matter of indifference, especially in recent years. So long as a President takes, and means, the oath of office, it shouldn’t matter. Why the outraged pushback against “accusations” — the very word embodies pushback — that the present President has a particular faith?

President Kennedy’s example is instructive. I was alive and awake during his campaign, though not yet an adult, and I well remember the whisper-and-rumor campaigns that went around our sleepy Southern town: The man’s a Catholic, his allegiance is to the Pope. He’s gonna take instruction from an old man in Italy, and that Just Ain’t Right. Kennedy’s reaction, and that of his campaign staff, was relatively forthright: Yes, I’m a Catholic. I take religious instruction from the Church hierarchy, but I don’t need and don’t take political or secular commands from that source. As your President, my first loyalty will be to the Constitution and to you, the People. The argument carried the day, as it should have — people who didn’t, and sometimes still don’t, agree with Kennedy’s policies or his behavior in office don’t base their objections on his religious faith, but on his behavior. Regardless of what his faith might be, why can’t Barack Obama make the same argument?

More importantly, why can’t his supporters? Why the full-throated, almost hysterical denunciations of the “accusations” that Obama is a Muslim? A President’s faith should be irrelevant, and the same faction that supports Obama has been shouting from the housetops for decades that all religious faith is irrelevant; why should it suddenly be relevant (and considered damaging) in this case? The United States has never before had a black President; now it does, and this is presented as a vast improvement in the American social contract — which it is. There has never been a Muslim President, either. Why should that not be considered a significant indicator of greater tolerance and acceptance of diversity?

The response to the “accusations” should approximate Yeah? So what? Instead it’s Nonononooo it’s not true you poopyheads! — and that violates all the stated beliefs and principles of the people doing the defending. It’s a mystery, it is. What’s going on?

Tip Jar

Donations (via PayPal)

Hit it, folks.
:fx:Calvin eyes:Puuleeeez?
You don't know many people who need it more.

When I Posted

August 2010