A couple of weeks ago, President Obama said he "wanted to find out whose ass to kick" in regards to the BP spill. This comment is laughable for a number of reasons.
First, he was attempting to quell our "Die Hard" nation who thinks it's more important for a president to look tough as opposed to actually doing his job. It's all about the image which I think is sad. Second, he just looks silly when he tries to "think with his guts" as W used to do. He's not that kind of guy and I'm glad for it. In a country filled with 10 year old boys, it's comforting to know that the leader of the free world is going to keep his head about him while all others are losing theirs.
But the real hilarious thing about his comment is that no one from our government is going to kick anyone's ass unless their corporate masters via the titantic lobbying machine in DC says it's OK. His comment looks quite foolish when there is no earthly way he can back any of it up. And that, my friends, is one of the main reasons why he has lost support from independents. They voted for him because they were under the impression that the government could actually govern. Sadly, this is not the case given the 100-1 ration of lobbyists to members of Congress. Add in the Cult to the mix and their delusions that government regulation is the reason why we have all the problems we have (and that corporations should be worshipped in a Christ like fashion) and the result is a president standing around...watching a multi-national corporation, as a clear result of lax regulation, destroy our Gulf Coast economy.
I guess I also have to laugh at the Cult jumping up and down and laugh about the falling poll numbers. Apparently, this "proves" that the "hopey, changey stuff" isn't working out. The reality is that his poll numbers have fallen with the Reagan Democrats because he's not "liberal" enough. Here, of course, I am using the Cult's definition of liberal which is defined by the rest of us as actually governing as opposed to massaging the feet of corporate interests. The independents of this nation wanted an executive branch that would refuse to coddle corporate interests and would tackle our nation's problems. Sadly, that is not happening. Why?
Well, it's really simple. We suck. In fact, we don't deserve a leader like President Obama and may as well elect Sarah Palin in 2012. I think large swaths of our country have to literally be charred and burned with piles of dead bodies before this insane paradigm of "Corporations: Warm and Beautiful, Government: Evil and Powerful" is broken. And she's just the person to realize this dream. She could end what Bush Co. couldn't find the guts to finish.
After all of the fine examples of the last two years that our government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations, we still haven't gotten the message. Actually, about a third of our country has gotten the message but when you have a second third that pathologically believes that any thing more then the slightest hint of government=boiling pit of enslavement in sewage and the final third more concerned about some fat fucker dragging their disgusting ass across Indonesia on the latest "reality" show than our socio-economic plutonomy, private interests realize their dream.
A perfect combination of apathy and fear.
13 comments:
Add in the Cult to the mix and their delusions that government regulation is the reason why we have all the problems we have...
After all of the fine examples of the last two years that our government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations, we still haven't gotten the message.
Make that a hundred years or so.
Yep, you still haven't gotten the message. You can't seem to make the connection that bought and paid for politicians and bureaucrats will still be bought and paid for even when your guys are in charge. You can't seem to make the connection that your guy is as bought and paid for as all the rest of them. After "watching a multi-national corporation, as a clear result of lax regulation, destroy our Gulf Coast economy" (notice that it is not a lack of regulation, it is lax regulation, in other words existing laws that aren't being enforced by our government), you can't seem to make the connection that adding more regulations, to be enforced only when it benefits the already powerful, isn't going to help.
Does anyone make a big enough hammer to get a new concept into your skull?
I think large swaths of our country have to literally be charred and burned with piles of dead bodies before this insane paradigm of "Corporations: Warm and Beautiful, Government: Evil and Powerful" is broken.
I hope for a change around here. That you stop arguing with the voices inside your head and instead talk to the real people that post here.
Now, since I was the one that challenged you on "Corporate Abuse" - a challenge you failed miserably by the way - why don't you actually engage with what I say about business (not just corporations) vs. govt.
Or perhaps it is your desire to only tilt at windmills.
His comment looks quite foolish when there is no earthly way he can back any of it up.
The Republicans seemed to disagree, at least at first. They thought the $20 billion escrow fund was the worst possible ass-kicking. That is, until they realized the American people would view them as beholden to BP if they continued to call the fund "extortion" (Bachmann) and a "shakedown" (Barton).
British pensioners feel like their asses have been kicked, with all the pressure to end dividend payments from BP.
And I'm sure Tony Hayward feels like his ass has been kicked. He was kicked so hard he flew halfway around the world and landed in a yacht race. And now he's no longer in charge of the spill cleanup.
Since the overriding motivation for corporations such as BP is profit, the $20 billion escrow fund is probably the best ass-kicking that can be delivered.
More concrete ass-kicking will have to wait until the courts can act on the charges of gross negligence that will likely be filed. I know the American people have a penchant for immediate vengeance, but we do have this thing called due process...
Gee Markadelphia, generalize much? It's always somebody elses fault isn't it.
Putting a ton of faith in any one politician (of either party) is turning out to be pretty delusional as well.
Oxymoron of the day:
"Chris Dodd-Barney Frank Financial Reform Bill".
Yes friends, it has come to this.
Mark, we don't have to argue about the corporate influence anymore. I've got a solution.
As a self-confessed Christian, I assume you believe in the fallibility of man. Since men are corruptible (I blame Eve), does it make sense to concentrate power in the hands of just a few men?
The re-election rate for incumbents is what.. 90%? Regardless of party.
IF it is true that 'Power Corrupts', does it make sense to realistically have no choice in who has that power?
Let's put an end to gerrymandering, and get some control over campaign financing. The details you and I can work out.
If the power was decentralized, how could an evil corporation buy an election? By supporting the campaigns of thousands of state and local representatives?
I desire a 'true' democracy as much as the founders, but we have managed to devolve to an oligarchy.
Let's get the power decentralized. The power of the Federal Government has got to be given back to the states. I agree that some things exist now - that didn't exist back in the late 1700's - that may require the Federal Gov't to be the oversight. We can work through that.
Let's start thinking along the lines of the intent of the ninth and tenth amendments.
Yes, life was simpler and slower then. Yes, some things may require a 'national' perspective. We can work those things out.
Where should we start?
dw
Mayor Daley gets to suck on the 2nd Amdt. And at last we are rid of Justice Stevens (though, in a rare fit of insight he got it right in Bilski).
Where do we start?
We start by going out with the trash because you call me a doll when we have 16 miles to go when I am alone with that beautiful thing because we all need someone to carry us through.
You make some good points, dw, and for whatever reasons your entire list of ideas made me think of term limits. Not to speak ill of the dead but did Robert Byrd really represent West Virginia in 2010? Or anyone in America? I guess I don't get the appointment for life thing with the Senate. Of course, that would call for other people wanting to serve and that seems to be in short supply as well.
last, nice....:)
Term limits? Of course. But I'll do you one better. (Or at least one step closer to my fitted straitjacket)
My plan is to randomly select the Congress from the lists of registered voters. Sure, you can beg off for health reasons or whatever.
Can anyone say with complete assurance that my plan wouldn't be better than the current oligarchy in Washington?
I'd like to put a minimum IQ as a criteria, but that'd be a tough sell. Besides, I can't imagine Cynthia McKinney would make the cut, and she's good for more laughs than Al Sharpton.
dw
...we don't deserve a leader like President Obama...
So if Bush and/or Cheney were "in the pocket of the oil companies" they're evil, hateful, horrible people who only merit contempt and threats of violence, but if Obama is "in the pocket of the oil companies" he merits pity. The ones who merit scorn are the people of the country, who "don't deserve a leader like President Obama".
How does that work?
...we don't deserve a leader like President Obama...
You're absolutely right.
Even electing Bush for two terms wasn't stupid enough to justify this. Talk about a disproportionate response...
Although, considering Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, it's not like we had any good choices. To be fair, with McCain it's not like we had much choice in 2008 either.
Post a Comment