Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Mad Pilgrimage of the Flesh


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Rape and Spillage

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 15, 2010
oil spill
AP / Eric Gay

The Transocean Deepwater Discoverer drilling rig, center, and support vessels operate over the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Sunday.

By Robert Scheer

What’s with the president’s war analogy on the oil spill? It’s as if some alien force, “The Invasion of the Slippery Sludge,” suddenly attacked us. “Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al-Qaida,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday in his White House speech, “and tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”

What nonsense. The oil was minding its own business until some multinational corporations, enabled by a dysfunctional government regulatory regime, decided to wage war on the ecological balance of the oceans by employing technology that they were not prepared to control. Cleaning up the oil spill mess we made by raping the environment to satiate our consumer gluttony is not a glorious battle against evil but rather obligatory penance for the profound error of our ways.

You wound Mother Nature by punching a hole deep in her pristine ocean where you have no business going and when she bleeds uncontrollably you dare blame her for the assault? This from a president who shortly before this disaster had given the oil companies permission to pillage in the deep seas at will. At least now he admits to having been extremely naive in his belief that they knew what they were doing:

“A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe—that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why.”

He already knows why! It’s the same ideological obsession that led to the deregulation of the banking industry based on the assumption that the unfettered pursuit of multinational corporation profits would somehow serve the public good. In every area of federal governance the story is the same; the mammoth corporations, through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, end up controlling the government agencies ostensibly regulating the activities of the military/industrial, health, financial and communications complexes. Why be surprised that the oil conglomerates are also in bed with their pretend Washington regulators? 

Obviously Obama cannot be blamed for the bipartisan endorsement of the Reagan Revolution’s siren song, a call to make the world safe for multinational corporations. The radical anti-regulation campaign—endorsed by Bill Clinton as well as the father-and-son Bush team—corrupted rather than improved the efficiency of the entire private sector, and what happened with the oil industry was the rule and not the exception. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
In explaining the failure of the Minerals Management Service, responsible for regulating the oil drillers, Obama stated: “Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility—a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.”

That damning indictment of the corporate corruption of our political process should stand as a cautionary tale to those like the majority in those red states now suffering so because of the offshore drilling of which their voters previously approved. Hopefully they, and the president who catered to such impulses, will take away from this very costly mess a justifiable skepticism about the risk assessments of plunderers who treat natural treasures as nothing more than potential profit centers. 

The public goes along because, as with the jobs created by military spending and the false wealth of financial bubbles, it is blinded by lavishly funded corporate PR to the true costs of such reckless corporate behavior. It is understandable that folks struggling to get by would fall for that line, but it is inexcusable when the political elite in Washington that know better goes along with such chicanery. 

The war that needs to be fought and won is against corporate dominance of every important aspect of our political culture. I hope this disaster, its impact revised upward by the government on Tuesday to represent an Exxon Valdez-size spill of oil into the Gulf every four days, will facilitate that. The difference between the new estimate, 60,000 barrels of oil a day, and BP’s original claim of 5,000 barrels a day is just another example of the systemic corporate deceit that has characterized this immense catastrophe. This is the wakeup call to fight corporate arrogance that we, and our president, desperately needed. 

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Gulf War Syndrome

Next item: Historical Lessons Warn Against Modern U.S. Foreign Policy



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ofersince72, June 17, 2010 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

With the help of these same people, Americans, starting
in 2006 and thru the 2008 elections, came real close to
burying the Republican Party for good, we had them down
for the count. The middle of the road Republicans were
mostly voting Democrat. Had our media and Democrat
politicians done what they were elected to do, by 2012
Democrats would have tapped into much of the Southern
vote.
  Instead and by design,  the Democrats came to power
and out republicaned the republicans,  the press still
goo gooing over Obama when it was obvious to most everyone
that he was a shill.  The powers that be who really run
the show (the overlords, not POTUS) were very frightened
at such a consolidation of power in one party and easily
manipulated the press (such as Robinson, Scheer, E.J.,
MSMs, viacom.ect.) into the divide.  So keep those stupid
comments about where this disaster should take place to
yourselves, you were duped as much as the tea baggers
have been!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By ofersince72, June 17, 2010 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

But a typical “new” liberal response and just the reason
many of the tea bag crowd moved right instead of left.
It has been Truth Digs type of response, MSNBC, Viacom,
and most of the rest of “liberal” media. Just the reason
that I have been condemning some of the journalism for
several months. Instead of reaching out for this crowd
that lost so much of their retirement investments, then
became disenchanted with Obama because of his support
for Wall Street over main street, Obama supporters, still
enchanted with Mr. Everything, criticized and ridiculed
these people; led by the Obama, democrat press.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 17, 2010 at 2:17 am Link to this comment

To those of you that say,
at least it is happening in the South,

  Same could be said
thats what you get for voting Obama

my point, as if it isn’t obv.
those kind of comments get remembered for a while,
and.. . . . . . . . . . . .
besides . . . . . . .. . .
because they are victims of their politicians tooo.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, June 16, 2010 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment

Jesus H. Christ Fat Freddy -

I noticed you ignored my comment about what BS libertarianism is and, you’ve managed to post a huge number of comments that are nothing but sophistic crap about regulation, capitalism and a lot of other subjects you obviously know nothing about (but certainly have a lot of “opinions” about).

As is usually the case with quasi-economists (talk about a dismal status of a dismal “pseudo-science”) you want to blather on about a bunch of absolutist ideas. I finally knew you weren’t for real when you talk about all those poor banks (that are incredibly profitable) who are so burdened by “regulations.” So what? And even if they are “burdened,” I don’t give a shit.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

re:By Fat Freddy, June 16 at 11:08 pm:

Why is it so important to you that the regulators be some from some “private”
third party company? You’re just adding another layer of bullshit.

The government (a) wants to regulate the oil industry (b). You are adding a
third party (c). So you, the supposed anti-bureaucracy libertarian, are adding
more bureaucracy, more expense, more complexity, all to satisfy your
nonsensical aversion to letting the government do the direct and obvious thing:
hire someone to do the job, rather than hire a company to hire someone to do
the job. Well, who’s going to make sure that 3rd-party company is doing its job
well and honestly? It’d better be the government—because that’s who’s
paying. More expertise needed, more oversight, etc.

So you can forget the ‘small government’ crap. This is a big government job any
way you look at it. You say you’re in favor of “limited government”. Well, hello!
We’re all in favor of limited government! I don’t know anyone who’s in favor of
unlimited government! Everybody wants the government to do certain things,
and not do other things. That doesn’t make one a libertarian. So congratulations
—you’re cured! You’re not a libertarian, you’re just like the rest of us.

Good lord.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

truedigger3

Banks are not unregulated. The next time you go into your bank, ask the manager what it’s like to have to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sure, Gramm-Leach-Bliley contributed to the problems. It created a major conflict of interest within the financial institutions, and highly encouraged third-party rent seeking firms like Goldman Sachs. But my opinion is that it was just a small part.

Note: When Blankfein was testifying on Capitol Hill and said “we are a market maker”, I wish that just one Congresscritter would have had the balls to say, “you are not a market maker, you are a fucking rent seeker”.

Listen to what Bill Black has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-HTylLzXu8

3:33 - “We did this, not through regulation, but because of our leverage as creditors.”


By far, the leading cause of the crisis was the unprecedented expansion of credit and “money” by the Federal Reserve Bank. Banks like Citi and BoA were leveraged at 60:1, and if you include their off-balance sheet transactions, those numbers were as high as 128:1. That’s why we had/have TBTF. But do not believe TBTF. It is a flat out lie. There are 8,100 other banks in this country that would love the opportunity to buy the assets of the TBTF at fire sale prices. We should let the bottom feeding vultures and piranhas devour the giant vampire squids. That’s called creative destruction, and it needs to happen. But shit, we can’t even get a complete GAO audit of the Federal Reserve, can we?

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges

OK Ed, I’ll bite. There are no easy answers. But here’s something that might help. How about a private third party that is responsible for safety? Like an insurance company. I’ve worked on a few very big construction projects. MBNA in Wilmington, DE, and a DuPont site in Newark, DE. (DE was a Right to Work state, at the time.) The safety measures imposed on the jobsite went far beyond any OSHA regs. Why? They were imposed by the liability insurance company that insured the general contractor. It was only a state regulation that the contractor have insurance. The regulations were imposed by the insurance company. They were enforced by an on-site safety inspector, who was an employee of the insurance company, and who had the authority to fine any sub contractor, shut down the job, and remove any worker or contractor for any reason, at any time. Yeah, he was a Mother Fucker, but it was a safe jobsite. Why did it work? Because the insurance company had a vested interest in safety. The government does not necessarily have a vested interest in safety.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

FDR absolutely did take us off the gold standard. In fact, he confiscated everybody’s gold in the country. It was illegal to own gold. The Bretton Woods agreement didn’t happen until after WWII. That put us back on a quasi-gold standard and created the IMF. Nixon then, unilaterally abandoned that agreement in 1971, because we didn’t have enough gold in our vaults to cover all of our debts that were incurred by the Vietnam War and social programs of Johnson. He then declared “we are all Keynesians, now”.

I’m glad you enjoy electricity. I enjoyed telephone service provided by a monopoly that was created by the government (AT&T and Bell Atlantic, now Verizon). But now, I am no longer limited to those two companies because of deregulation. Carter started the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, and Reagan finished it. That opened the door for companies like Sprint and MCI, and rates went down. The government no longer needs to regulate long distance telephone service because of free and fair competition. By helping to open the telecommunications field to new firms and new technologies, the deregulation at least indirectly helped bring about the *application* of fiber optics. (the actual development of fiber optics was the result of the military).

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

re:By Fat Freddy, June 16 at 9:44 pm :

Well, there’s no way you can have your fantasy of “small government”, and at the
same time have a government that is capable of competently regulating something
as gargantuan in scale and byzantine in complexity as the oil industry! There is no
conceivable government that could in any way be called “smal"l that could also do
such things!

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

So we are on the same page here yet you wasted our time by saying we had regulation and it failed. So why did you do that? We want real un-corrupted regulation both reasonable and fair. So where is the disagreement with you on this and us?

I don’t know. You tell me. Do you have a different definition of regulatory capture? It’s you people who keep putting words in my mouth. It must be the liberal pre-programed response, that anything libertarian is automatically pro-big business.

Fat Freddy, when one of those huge corporations and/or their rich owners mess you up what do you do in your Libertarian world? Go to court? You against them. Who would win? Please give an example of how that would be handled. Would it be a freelance or gov’t judge? I am interested in how that would be taken care of as would we all.

Yes. What else would you do? Isn’t that the way our legal system is set up? Sure, Murray Rothbard argued that the government shouldn’t have a monopoly on that. That is a bit extreme, but not unworkable. If the government mistakenly kicks in your door, with a no-knock warrant, looking for drugs, and shoots both of your dogs, what do you do? Sue them in court? If the government falsely accuses you of being the Anthrax mailer, what do you do? Sue them in court for $5.8 million dollars? Actually, that case never made it to court, did it?

Why haven’t Libertarians extended the olive branch to Leftists and Progressives and even Democratic-Socialists for those things they agree with? Isn’t there some point of intersection? I think so.

Believe it or not, I was a liberal until I learned economics. A free market is the result of free people freely interacting, not the cause. FREEDOM is the cause. Do liberal/progressives hate freedom? It’s not perfect, it’s not Utopian, it’s just freedom. Love it or leave it. The alternative is state control.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 16, 2010 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

Well it wasn’t up to mine either. And since neither of us are spokes people for the president then that is that now isn’t it?

Obama sat around doing nothing while he in his Republican/conservative way let the market and BP do it. The popular pressure, and a number of 42% general support, put a figurative boot in his ass to do something. Now we shall see if he really wants to get this repaired or not. He is still letting BP run the show including forbidding reporters, hiding the dead wild life,  telling the Coast Guard to be their guards and those people put in harms way to help clean up the mess are given 1/6 the training and can’t suit up to protect themselves from a toxic environment. In this mega-disaster unfolding, what has been done isn’t very much and compounds what needs to be done now with every delay and criminal action of BP.

Better late than never is the best I can say right now. If you are starving even crumbs can seem like a feast, eh 50gigs?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2010 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

Fat Freddy, June 16 at 1:13 pm,

It wasn’t Roosevelt that took the United States off the Briton Woods Agreement’s Gold Standard, as your movie suggests, it was Conservative Right-Wing Nixon that took the United States off the Briton Woods Agreement’s Gold Standard.

It is true I am enjoying rural electricity because of a liberal minded Roosevelt, otherwise the Conservatives would have kept the United States a 3rd world country and there would be no electricity for the populace.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges

Oh please, tell us Freddy, how the total absence
of government regulation would have prevented
the BP oil disaster.

I never said that. What I said was:

“I understand the importance of real regulations, with real enforcement. Unfortunately, we have neither.”

But if you want to keep misrepresenting my position, go right ahead, you only make yourself look like an idiot.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, June 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

Speaking of money, I love Keith Olbermann, but he
really is letting his personal views affect
objectivity, which, I understand, is different than
passivity.

Olbermann: “I hope that is again the case now because
the Gulf Speech was not up to his standards nor did
it express his mastery of policy.”

No, the speech was not up to YOUR expectation of his
standards. I agree the speech will not likely go down
in history as his best, but a few checks on reality:

1) BP today committed—as President Obama insisted
—$20 BILLION in escrow. Contrast that with (say) a
George Bush who’d be absolving the industry at this
point, and then try and convince me again that Obama
“isn’t doing anything” or isn’t a “master of policy”
or isn’t on “our” side.

2) By all accounts, big oil rules the world, and,
judging by some in the media, is pushing the U.S.
government around. Add to that the fact that
Republicans are failing to support our President in
crisis (remember that 60 vote thing?). And that governors of the affected states are sitting around
saying there ain’t no problem. So, given that
reality, do you REALLY think a prudent political
strategy for Obama would be to take on every freaking
oil company in the world right now?

Let me add the incidental fact that OIL IS STILL
LEAKING, and you expect Obama to detail what he’s
going to do? About what? Nobody knows the extent of
the actual problem, for crying out loud. (You DID
hear the part about this lasting a while, right? I
realize that doesn’t fit your news cycle, but be
responsible for once.)

Rather than bash President Obama, why isn’t liberal
media putting conservative’s feet to the fire? THAT’S
the real problem here. Stop insinuating that
conservatives caused this, and get a mic in their
faces so they can either admit it, or join the rest
of America in trying to HELP during this crisis!

Report this

By "Anonymous Coward", June 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can someone answer whether:
1. All the escaping oil is coming up
  inside the riser pipe?
2. The oil pressure is enough to
  lift the riser pipe etc. out of
  the ground, if a valve/cap were
  to shut off the flow?
3. If not #2, why no shutoff valve
  is installed?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 16, 2010 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Fiat currency is backed by nothing but belief that it is worth something. Since going off the gold and silver standards and the creation of the Federal Reserve our money has stopped being Constitutional. If you look on it you find it can’t be redeemed for anything and is a note now. It is literally supported like God in what the people trust. Not in “E plurabis unum” & “novis ordo seclorum” anymore.

It should come from the Treasury only not through the Fed.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

One of the favorite libertarian fantasies is that there is such a thing as what money
is “really” worth, in the absence of any government whatsoever.

There was in the ideal past some innocent, natural money, in the garden of Eden,
which has been taken away from us, and what we have is a government-regulated
“fiat currency”.

So their defense of last resort, when faced with some bad behavior by a rich
corporation like BP, is that BP wouldn’t even be so rich, if the government
hadn’t distorted the natural order of things by replacing nature’s natural money
with its own insidious pseudo-money.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Obama can be blamed if he has been endorsing multi-national corporate growth in power and reach. Yes he can!

Now the right wingers contend that BP was forced to drill in 5,000 ft of water by the gov’t (with Progressives) forcing them to. Now how much of that is fact?

I can only hope that in the future, when some real aliens visit this planet, the remains of the dead will have coins, gems, paper in the remains that would indicate they thought they could eat
money to live.
samosamo,

The very beginning of the novel of “Dr. Strangelove” does just that! Also read “Julian Comstock in 22nd Century America” on what could be the future of us in 2170’s.

The amount gushing out, leaking has nothing to do with it. is as high as 250,000 gallons a day!!! This would be classified as a Mega Disaster.

Fat Freddy, it doesn’t matter whats on paper if it isn’t enforced now does it? The MMS gave passes constantly to BP & others up till recently. They were also having sex, drugs and other stuff with them too. Did you know that?

Fat Freddy, when one of those huge corporations and/or their rich owners mess you up what do you do in your Libertarian world? Go to court? You against them. Who would win? Please give an example of how that would be handled. Would it be a freelance or gov’t judge? I am interested in how that would be taken care of as would we all.

The British Colonies here were the dumping ground for the riffraff and dross of the UK population (as they saw it.) It stayed that way up until 1788 when the revolution stopped it. Then they were dumped in Australia.

We need to start again what was done originally, bring the corporations up to judge whether they have helped society or not. If so 5 more years to prove it again. If not, dissolution. But since 1886 they have become not humans but super humans! Much to our detriment. Next stage in their evolution? Nation-state status with embassies et al. If you are caught doing a crime on their territory then they can do what they want to you under their laws. It is only a matter of time.

“I understand the importance of real regulations, with real enforcement. Unfortunately, we have neither.”Fat Freddy,

So we are on the same page here yet you wasted our time by saying we had regulation and it failed. So why did you do that? We want real un-corrupted regulation both reasonable and fair. So where is the disagreement with you on this and us?

The only reason why the Republicans and DINOs are “for” welfare is because it would be political suicide to vote against it in most cases. But what is coming will do the job for them—-when we move from this Depression to a Great Depression it will give the president(either party) and excuse to end it while the billions will go to the war and the external empire that has been created over the decades. It could also mean the ascention of the oligarchs to ruler status. Something they have been pining for since failing in 1934.

Why haven’t Libertarians extended the olive branch to Leftists and Progressives and even Democratic-Socialists for those things they agree with? Isn’t there some point of intersection? I think so.

Report this

By truedigger3, June 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Fat Freddy, June 16 at 5:50 pm #

Fat Freddy wrote:
“Let’s say a bank or investment firm has a security (asset), say an RMBS that has a face value of $100. But, because most RMBSs are crap, it’s only really worth about $20. Which value should appear on the bank’s balance sheet? The government says $100. What do liberals propose to do about that? It’s legalized accounting fraud,”
____________________________________________________

Fat Freddy,

That is what the all powerful unregulated, running amok, banks and Wall St. houses ORDERED the government to do, because they control the government completely.
After the current debacle there were repeated attmepts to re-instate Glass-Steagall act that seperated investment banking from commercial banking, and consequently would have prevented the “too big to fail” syndrome, and introduce transparancy and tracking of hedge funds and curtailing short selling of stocks, but the banks and Wall St. investement houses objected vehemently and the whole thing died out quietly.
If these measures were in place, the current debacle would not had happened and any future debacle will be extremel unlikely.  So, now the stage is set for another debacle with another round of bail-outs coupled by hefty bonuses to Wall St. banksters and fraudsters.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

Kind of like Nigeria, or about a dozen other countries
I could name off the top of my head without any
regulations,

one big polluted mess with the masses living in thatch
huts dieing of starvation.  No regulation, works well for
them.

and not considered disasters.

Report this

By jean gerard, June 16, 2010 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No answer to my June 16 request?  Well, I’ll try again because I really want to
know:

In a previous entry June 16 I asked for somebody to paiint some reasonable
picture of how to get control of corporate=governmental dominionism and
move toward a system that would be better for the vast majority of real live
human beings. And do it nonviolently.  (Enough of killing!)

I suggested some things that might logically follow a serious effort toward
change and asked whether others thought them likely, and if not, what else
might be expected.

Fundamentally, I don’t want socialist ideology.  I want suggestions of real
problems that would accrue if, for instance, investors stopped investing,
cashed out of the capitalist system and began to set up a more people-friendly
cooperative way of exchanging goods and talents.

I think many of us need to be led very specifically by the hand on ways to get
free of capitalism.  We don’t need ideological rants.  We need to be able to
picture what and how and where, realistically, change could be achieved.
Call me naive, stupid, whatever.  I’m not unique in my need for specific
explorations of this vitally important subject.  Yet nobody took a crack at
answering.  So I ask again. (Please see details in my previous post as on this
computer control/copy etc. doesn’t work so I can’t reprint that post here._)

Report this

By Robbie-Baby, June 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

““A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe—that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why.”

Because, Mr. President, it’s like they taught us in Sunday school: “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” Do you get that now? That it’s not just an interesting Bible verse? With billions, even trillions of dollars at stake, you might want to take what the multinationals tell you with a grain of salt. Just sayin’...

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Fat Freddy, June 16 at 5:50 pm:

Oh please, tell us Freddy, how the total absence
of government regulation would have prevented
the BP oil disaster.

Or is it that it wouldn’t be a disaster, by definition,
if it occurred in a totally unregulated world—because by definition anything
occurring in the absence of government regulation is the work of Nature and
therefore a good thing—however much it may appear to superficial minds to be
a bad thing?

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, June 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

So many comments about “libertarianism” on this thread!!!!! How wonderful. This gives me an opportunity to summarize libertarianism in the following ways:

1)Libertarians are Republicans that smoke dope.

2)Libertarians are those who, after the roads, bridges, sewer systems, cities, airports, infrastructures, legal systems, school systems and all the other good things have been built, complain because they are asked to go hunt for the tribe even though others have been doing so for generations ahead of them.

3)Libertarians are the kind of folks who show up to the party without a bottle and expect to enjoy the buffet.

One other thing: Friends are the kind of people I can trust to watch my back in a good bar fight. Libertarians are not those people.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Let me put it into terms a little easier to understand. Right now, the government has suspended what they call FASB (157). What does that mean? That means that the government has legalized accounting fraud. Let’s say a bank or investment firm has a security (asset), say an RMBS that has a face value of $100. But, because most RMBSs are crap, it’s only really worth about $20. Which value should appear on the bank’s balance sheet? The government says $100. What do liberals propose to do about that? It’s legalized accounting fraud, but it was approved by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, President Obama, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner and all of the other little crooks. Libertarians say mark to market, what do liberals say? The liberals say, if the banks mark to market, the economy will crash. Print more money. It’s also what Republicans say. That’s government regulation at work. Nice ‘eh?

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

ofersince72

Republicans - Political party that favors Welfare and Warfare.

Democrats - Political party that favors Welfare and Warfare.

The choice is simple. Welfare and Warfare for everyone!

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

ardee

Please tell me, or show me where I said I support “absence of regulation”. In fact this is what I said:

“I understand the importance of real regulations, with real enforcement. Unfortunately, we have neither.”

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth when I have stated the exact opposite, on this very page? You can Straw Man all you want, but it doesn’t change what I said. Please stop making a fool of yourself. I guess when you can’t win an argument with logical reasoning, you can just change what your opponent has stated.

Look, all I ask of the government is to protect the individual rights of the citizens. Enforce the laws against fraud, misrepresentation, robbery and trespass, without placing unfair burdens on me or my business or other individuals and businesses. It’s sort of like asking the government to protect us from terrorism, without violating the Constitution or Geneva Conventions with shit like the Patriot Act, torture and suspension of Habeas Corpus. You can understand that, right? Same principle, only applied to business and finance.

Workers and consumers benefit when there’s free and fair competition. If I have a marketable skill, and there’s only 1 or 2 companies, I’m limited on how much money I can make. If there’s 5 or 6 companies, I can look for the best offer, and increase my wages. If there’s a shortage of workers in my particular field, I can really increase my wages. However, if there’s a recession, I may have to take a cut. That’s life. The alternative is price and wage controls. Is that what you really want?

Look, I run a small business, and I don’t make a whole lot of money. If I wanted to, I could get a job with the government for a decent wage, with regular raises, and lots of benefits. But I want to be in control of my own destiny. Why do you want to take that away from me? Are you jealous?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Economics I believe is called a science?  What I know about economics would fit in my check book.
My feeling is opportunists know how to make money and know how to keep it.  Since I am not an opportunist, I barley cover my expenses and enjoy my life. 

All the promoted crap we are sold supposedly to make life fulfilling, is to me a load of crap! Obtaining the comfy promoted life seems an illusion to me, for life can be what I want it to be, not want someone else tells me I need or want.

People need to be more independent in themselves and not depend on government to cover there arises.  Far as one can see government is one delusional in its goal supporting corporate interests. 

The new world order has been the only plan for some time now, and it does not support public interests at the federal level for the world is not federal.

Report this

By Lawrence Baker, June 16, 2010 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

Gulf Oil Clean Up- Dutch Rules Technology!

What is outrageous are the Lies, Secrets and Cover-Up coming from BP and our failed, subservient government in response to this National disaster.

Science, technology and regulation has been neutered, gagged and is but a myth.

The Dutch and Belgians have the only specialized mass oil recovery technology and rigged tanker ships to contain 100 percent of the flow and have the ability to suck up the oil at depth in the ocean before it drifts 48 miles to shore.

BP and Uncle Tom Obama refused the offer! Why! Secret!

The in-house world criminals of Big Oil and World Banksters are in charge with the controlled mass media; Truth is powerless against them.

World chaos, control and profit are their game and only revolution will set things right again. Nationalize Big Oil, World Bankers, and World Insurance for the public good and bring the criminals to justice!

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

is the term “privitized capitolism” a redundancy?
  or is there such thing as “unprivitized capitolism”,
  and if so , what is it?

  Anyone really believe there is a political process
  left in America?  If so, how?
 
  Leefeller, you are the one that brought him up,
  You don’t like the Dems,  I sure hope the Pubs are out
  Who do you suggest?  I need some light.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Fat Freddy, June 16 at 10:32 am #

Your Straw Man argument is about as artful as the President’s. Show me anywhere, that shows that Libertarians support any type of, what you call, “corporate welfare”. If you knew anything about Libertarianism, you would know that we are vehemently opposed to any subsidies, grants or any type of favoritism to any corporation or industry by the government. That goes against the free market principle. You keep confusing Libertarianism with Reaganomics, either mistakenly, or purposefully

ardee,

I almost forgot

including defense against corporations run amok

Would that be covered under: the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation?

Come, Freddy, let us walk the yellow brick road together, maybe the Wizard will give us both a brain with which to reason.

Your protestations of the innocence of libertarian philosophy is a sham, whether you are a part thereof or its innocent victim.

The absence of regulation by a strong govt. in a capitalist system means that corporations will be completely free to , forgive the use of a technical economic term here, shit all over the working class, the environment and the consumer ( did I leave anything out?).

I do not understand you folks missing the obvious, unless you are a part of the corporate heirarchy benefitting from that absence of regulation. History shows ,in the struggle for decent wages and working conditions, in events like the Bhopal, India disaster claiming three thousand lives ( no regulation nonsense there you betcha!), in numerous instances in fact, that regulation is a necessity.

Now if you would argue that what we have now is not true regulation but a travesty thereof, then we can agree. But to think that, in the face of history and current headlines, the solution to our corporate takeover of govt is to give the bastards even more free rein, well, when we arrive at the end of this yellow brick road by all means go see the wizard first, you need him much more than do I…....

All in good fun…but serious.

Report this

By Mo, June 16, 2010 at 11:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sheer writes, “The war that needs to be fought and won is against corporate dominance of every important aspect of our political culture.”

Maybe Truthdig could start by not advertising JP Morgan Chase, Time Warner Cable, Progressive Insurance, Dominos Pizza, Ford, Staples, Equifax, Red Baron Pizza, Hewlett-Packard, Volkswagen, etc.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2010 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 16 at 1:47 pm #
“But they (libertarians) favor policies that lead inevitably to government
corruption.”

..... and “Libertarians are like people who love veterinarians, but passionately
hate animal doctors.”

=================

I couldn’t agree with you more. While I had liked a lot of what Bob Barr had to
say (not that I would have voted for him, mind you) that party seems to either
be devoid of any realistic discipline or it is totally clueless as to how the two
major parties had dug the hole we are currently in had gotten us there.

Somewhere along the line, here, those people who have taken this personal
wealth issue to this ridiculous level need to be knocked up-side the head to
remind themselves that there are higher ideals to achieve than the number of
digits on a net worth statement. As long as these people stay so disconnected
from mankind, they will continue to feel that only they have a right to the
lifeboats.

Report this

By scotttpot, June 16, 2010 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

Blaming Bp and the government is easy .
I wish Obama would have challenged Fat ,Lazy,Americans to walk, cycle,or take public transportation Three times a week and participate in using less fossil fuel.Most people could drive 20 -40 miles less every week but I suppose it is just too much “freedom’’ to give up.Americans are insecure enough to believe that a big gas guzzling car or truck makes them a free or an impressive person .
Blame Mexico for supplying the drugs we want ,blame Muslims for not wanting American ‘‘democracy ‘’ in their countries,and blame BP for drilling for the oil that we guzzle.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges

I think you’ve stumbled across it, and don’t even realize it. Yes, the government has the power of the control of the money supply. That’s the problem. Both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson realized that money that was backed by gold, or some other commodity, was the in the best interest of the common people because it couldn’t be manipulated or controlled by banks or government. Only the wealthy truly benefit from newly printed money. because of new money, they are able to hoard what they have. Without new money, they would have to spend the money they have to survive, and to invest it to make more money. That’s why the Federal reserve was created at the behest of people like JP Morgan. In fact, his legacy still lives today as one of the richest banks in the world. Why? Because they benefit the most from newly printed money from the Federal Reserve. Printing new money, or monetary inflation, is responsible for almost all of the redistribution of wealth in this country. The practice of fractional reserve banking is responsible for the rest. You can’t have fractional reserve banking and monetary inflation. That’s why we have the problems we have. The biggest companies get the benefit of the very lowest artificial interest rates on money, while you and I are lucky if we get prime rates.

Report this

By samosamo, June 16, 2010 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

****************


From the mac dictionary:

rape 1 |r?p|

noun

the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to
have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and
against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against
them : he denied two charges of attempted rape | he had
committed at least two rapes.

• figurative the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place or area
: the rape of the Russian countryside.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resourses
fax ..(202) 224-6163
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
fax.. (202) 224-1273
House…Energy and Commerce
fax…(202) 225-2525
House. Select Committee on Energy Independence and
    Global Warming
fax…(202) 225-4092


don’t be polite….....demand…

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

ofersince72

All of my relatives came here from Europe, through Ellis Island between 1890 and 1917. All of them had opportunities to better themselves if they worked hard and saved their money. They did. They all settled in Southern NJ. From 1860 all the way up to the 1970s S. Jersey was filled with prosperous communities, filled with small and medium sized businesses, there was plenty of work for most people and everybody had an opportunity to better themselves. The town I live in was mostly Jewish and Italian immigrants. It was built on the idea of private property rights and small family owned farms. Nobody had to ask the government for anything. We took care of ourselves and our families and each other. All of my grandfathers and great uncles were successful small business owners. That all pretty much ended in the 1970s. Perhaps you can tell me why.

The robber barons you speak of, JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller, to name a couple, amassed their fortunes through uncompetitive and unfair business practices, not free market principles. Most times, with the help of government.  The Interstate Commerce Commission was set up to place unfair burdens on smaller competitors. The Federal Reserve bank was set up to allow banks and lending institutions to operate fraudulently, and benefited the largest of the banks the most. When the Great Progressive Woodrow Wilson was tricked into signing the Federal Reserve Act (designed by JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller, BTW) he pretty much sealed the fate of all of the entrepreneurs and working class people of this country to Serfdom, which is where we are almost at, now. And you Progressives keep pushing for more.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

VISION FROM THE SMALL BLUE WINDOW   Ernesto Cardenal

From the airplane window everything is blue:
bluish earh, green-blue, blue
                  (like the sky)
  everything is blue
blue lakes and blue gagoons
  blue volcanoes
in the distance the earth turns bluer
  blue islands in a blue lake.
This is the face of the liberated earth.
And where all the people fought.  I think:
                            for love!
To live without the hatred
                of exploitation.
To love one another on this beautiful earth,
so beautiful, not only for itself,
    for humanity upon it,
above all for humanity upon the earth.
That’s why the Lord gave us this beautiful earth,
    to form a society uponit.
And in all those blue places people fought.people suffered
    for a society built on love
        here on this earth.
A patch of blue has a greater intensity….
And I felt I was seeing, there, the arena of all combats,
and all deaths
from behind that round and small
                    blue glass
        with all tones of blue.

Report this

By garyrose66, June 16, 2010 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Libertarians use a lot of words and hysterical defenses to say nothing more than this:  I am greedy and selfish and nothing else in the world is more important than making sure I can remain greedy and selfish.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Freddy writes:

“Libertarians support limited government. That means limiting the power of
government, not the wealth of individuals. If governemnt has no power to sell, there is no
power for the wealthy to buy.”

So the what if the government is “weak” at some abstract starting point in the beginning
of the libertarian utopia.

The government would not and could not remain weak. There would have to be some
magical outside force to keep the government “weak”.  In fact, any government that has
the power to enforce abstractions like “private property” and “money” is ALREADY a
strong government!

What would happen is this: the government would assume whatever powers the rich
wanted it to have, and they would inevitably make sure that the government is turned
into an instrument to keep and increase their own power. Hence: government tyranny,
which the libertarians claim to oppose.

What would keep the rich from doing this? Philosophical purity?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

THE ECOLOGY   Ernesto Cardenal

In september by San Ubaldo more coyotes were seen.
Soon after the triumph, more lizards
  in the rivers by San Ubaldo
    On highways more rabbits, mountain cats…
The bird population has tripled, they tell us,
  especially that of snipes.
Noisy snipes come down to swim where
    they see water sparkling.
The Somocistas also destroyed lakes, rivers, and mountains
  They changed the course of rivers for their ranches.
The Ochomogo dried up last summer.
The Sinecapa dred by ravages of the big landowners.
The Rio Grande of Matagalpa dried up during the war
      over by the Sebaco plains
They built two dams on the Ochomogo,
      and capitalist chemical wastes
spilt into the Ochomogo had the fish swimming
        like drunkards.
    The Boaco River with black waters,
The Moyua Lagoon dried up.  A Somocista colonel
stole lands from campesinos
        and built a dam.
The Moyua lagoon that for centuries had made
        that site beautiful
    (but the little fish will return.)
They revaged and repressed.
    Few iguanas in the sun, few armadillos.
The green Caribbean turtle was sold by Samoza.
Turtle eggs and iguanas were exported by the truckload.
      The Caribbean turtle was wiped out.
The saw-fish of the Gran Lago finished off by Jose Somoza.
The jaguar of the jungle in danger of extinction,
  its soft fur the color of jungle,
and the puma, the tapir in the mountains
(like the campesinos in the mountains).
And the poor Chiqito River! Its disgrace
that of the whole nation. Somocismo reflected in its water
The chiquito River of Leon, fed at the source
by sewers, the wastes of soap factories and tanneries,
white water from soap factories,
                red from the tanneries;
plastics on the river bed, chamber pots, rusted irons.
Thats what Somicismo left us.
(We have to see it beautiful and clear again, singing
to the sea.)
And into the lake of Managua al the black waters and
chemical wastes of Managua,
  And over by Solentiname, on the isle of La Zanata
a great white mound stinking
            with saw-fish skeletons.
But the saw-fish can now breathe
along with fresh water shark.
Tisma is once again full of regal herons
            reflected in its mirrors
It has many starlings, snipes, guises, widgeons.
    The flora has benefited as well.
The armadillos are very happy with this government.
  We shall reclaim the forests, rivers, lagoons.
We’re going to deconaminate the lake of Managua.
Not only humans desired liberation.
The whole ecology wanted it.  The revolution
  is also of lakes, rivers, trees, animals.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

re:By NYCartist, June 16 at 2:10 pm:

Are you familiar with the concept of metaphor?

Report this

By jean gerard, June 16, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People who really want to stop the wars and pillages feeding corporations can
dump their stock and not re-invest in the market.  That would kill the system. 
Then what?  The vast machinery of consumerism would grind to a halt.

Big trouble while we went through a major readjustment.  Back to a need for
sharing, for bartering and community self-help.  Back to reprocessing, using
cast-offs, staying home, picnicing in the park, walking to school,  bicycling to
work, paying more attention to healthy living, taking care of each other, raising
food locally.  Employment by others turning toward mutual self-help. An
interim adjustment period which would mean a heightened death-rate for all
kinds of reasons related to such a radical shift.

Eventually essential cooperation would teach us new ways, open up new
avenues for sharing, understanding.  Class differences would greatly decrease
under a leveling process forced by mutual needs.  Certainly often painful, but
not deadly in itself.  Possible over a period of time.

There would be some violence—but probably not a huge war unless some
panicky idiot got hold of the red button, creating a disaster much more
difficult to survive than any other kind of collapse.

Help me out here.  If this is way off the mark, how can corporations be
controlled, modified, destroyed, dealt with, defanged—whatever?  I feel a
need NOT for a rehearsal of socialist ideology but for a picture of how a viable
change could actually occur as nonviolently as possible?  What would it look
like?  How would it feel?  How could the pains of such an enormous transition
be eased?  Refer me to a source?

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, June 16, 2010 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

It would be better to read this tirade backwards. As usual it starts out strong and then fizzles at the end. “This is the wakeup call to fight corporate arrogance that we, and our president, desperately needed”??? “We” and ‘their’ president have long since punted on fighting corporate arrogance. “We” and the somnolent president live in a permanent state of corporate snooze control in a permanent war economy. So it’s pretty obvious, “What’s with the president’s war analogy on the oil spill?” War is what defines Amerika and its peace-prize president. It’s a perfectly apt analogy. Just like ‘our’ “men and women in uniform are taking the fight to…” the brave resistance forces in foreign lands with an eye toward raping their resources, so too we’re waging war on own environment right here in the Fatherland. And our Chickenhawk-in-Chief is right there on the spot to make matters worse. “The oil was minding its own business until some multinational corporations, enabled by a dysfunctional government regulatory regime, decided to wage war on the ecological balance of the oceans”…and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine were minding their own business until some dysfunctional government regime enabled by multinational corporations decided to wage war on them. So, it’s all of a piece – carried out by that great multicultural man of peace, Scheer’s president, whom he urged everyone to vote for and contribute to.
  “In every area of federal governance the story is the same; the mammoth corporations, through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, end up controlling the government agencies ostensibly regulating the activities of the military/industrial, health, financial and communications complexes. Why be surprised that the oil conglomerates are also in bed with their pretend…” president?  But still, for Scheer, “Obviously Obama cannot be blamed”!!! “It is understandable that folks struggling to get by would fall for that line, but it is inexcusable when the political elite in Washington that know better goes along with such chicanery”...but all the same, Scheer will go right on excusing his predacious president to the ends of the earth. “Hopefully… the president who catered to such impulses, will take away from this very costly mess a justifiable skepticism about the risk assessments of plunderers who treat natural treasures as nothing more than potential profit centers”...and hopefully, pigs will fly someday. “What nonsense”, indeed.
  Sure,“The war that needs to be fought and won is against corporate dominance of every important aspect of our political culture”… and that war is being fought by the valiant resistance movements in the far-flung corners of the Amerikan empire; and they unlike the useless Amerikan public are already wide awake. God bless them!

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges

Libertarians support limited government. That means limiting the power of government, not the wealth of individuals. If governemnt has no power to sell, there is no power for the wealthy to buy. Liberals want to give government more power, while stealing the wealth of individuals at gunpoint. That means that government will have more power to sell, and more wealth to distribute as they see fit. Coercion is wrong, regardless of intent. Stealing money is dishonest. Do you support a dishonest government?

Report this

By NYCartist, June 16, 2010 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

On use of “raping the environment”, R. Scheer - rape is violence on women, children and men using sexual act as weapon.  The environment does not get raped.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

I like my history books thank you!!
Many Europeans were fooled,most, promised houses,
good wages ect. , to come to America.
I agree the days of the original robber barons were
very productive for them.

No doubt the struggles of labor were left out of your
history books.

later, you are starting to get fictious and revisionist.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Fat Freddy writes:

“Please provide me with a link that says
Libertarians support government corruption.”

Freddy, of course they don’t.

They are against government corruption.

But they favor policies that lead inevitably to government corruption.

Libertarians are like people who love veterinarians, but passionately hate animal
doctors.

Report this

By samosamo, June 16, 2010 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

****************


So, o wants regulatory action. How’s he going to do that? Out bid
the lobbyists? Those are the very creatures responsible for what
can be considered as charles keating’s contribution to this
wonder milton turdmouth friedman’s unfettered free open
market economics(William Black called it control fraud where by
any regulatory agency, law and members are bought off, or
somehow squeezed out of their responsibility). Which entails the
unfettered use of criminal bribery by ‘lobbyists’(quaint name to
try and hide their criminal endeavors) to destruct and obstruct
and gut any regulatory efforts that exist or are attempted to be
created. And I feel the newly created corporate scotus will
certainly do their part in protecting this ‘unfettered corporate’
world.

So band-aid actions as what o proposes, the rhetoric is once
again unimpeachable, but doesn’t go to the root of the problem
which is for any regulatory actions to happen and work will
require that lobbying be given the old ‘heave ho’ and laws
enforced to punish those using influence peddling to obstruct
regulation and punish those that accept those bribes to grant
the favors that are for personal, political and financial gain at the
expense of the taxpayer.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

ofersince72

What is so had about economics?  please share with us
what libertarians know about economics that liberals
are unable to grasp, in turn we will teach art appreciation to ya all.

It’s not hard. That’s just it. It’s common sense. It was Keynes that made it difficult. Start with this (42 min.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges

You are so full of shit. Where did you learn how to reason logically, Kindergarten? Please provide me with a link that says Libertarians support government corruption.

“Libertarians support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.”

What part of that don’t you understand? I’ll be happy to explain it to you.

Libertarians seek a world of liberty, in which individuals control their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is essential for a peaceful, prosperous world. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings.

The world we seek is one where individuals are free to achieve their goals using their own judgments, without interference from government.

We affirm the ideals expressed by New Jersey’s motto, “Liberty and Prosperity,” which we believe can best be ensured by the basic principles outlined in our Platform. In the following pages, we set forth those principles, and policies derived from them.

We hold that individuals have the right to exercise sole control over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live as they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the state has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual, which are:

(1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

(2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and

(3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, zoning, and eminent domain; and we support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders. And the resultant economic system — the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights — is the free market.

http://njlp.org/partyinfo/platform

Please tell me why you hate freedom so much, Ed? Are you afraid of it? Do you really want someone else in control of your life? Perhaps, you could just live in your parent’s basement for the rest of your life.

Report this

By cheyennebode, June 16, 2010 at 8:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

GOOD ARTICLE ROBERT SCHEER

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

ofersince72

Living conditions at the time period you suggested were worse than what they were before that? Are you saying the Industrial Revolution made conditions worse for people? That was one of the most productive periods in our history, and elevated the living standards of thousands of people. Europeans flocked here by the thousands on anything that would float for a chance to better themselves and their living conditions. I think you need a new history book. Sure, there were abuses, but that was a failure of government to properly protect the rights of individuals. The only time in our history that was more productive was during slavery and Plantations, another failure of government.

Libertarianism was the founding principle of this country because the alternative was Mercantilism and Monarchy. What we might call a “centrally planned” economy, or a centrally controlled government. Look at the living conditions in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea. Yeah, I’d much rather have a strong, centrally controlled government. The opposite of Libertarianism is Statism. Statism leads, undeniably, to Serfdom. Government control of markets, production, wages and prices will only enslave its citizens at the gain of a few wealthy and powerful individuals or groups. This country has been under statist control for at least the past 60 years. Is it working? No, we are becoming more and more like the former Soviet Union.

Government: “Just give me a little more of your freedom, and we’ll keep you safe, hehehe. We’ll give you everything you want, and we’ll take it from you , anytime we want.”

For the life of me, I can’t understand why Statists love the governemnt so much. I guess maybe it’s because they think that government can solve all of their problems. Government only makes things worse. Never-ending Welfare and Warfare is the signature of a Statist regime, not a free market regime.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

re:By Fat Freddy, June 16 at 11:54 am:

Libertarianism means that you let the rich do what they want with their money.

When you let the rich do what they want with their money, they buy the
government, resulting in tyrannical government.

Then, when the rich-owned government becomes a tyranny, the libertarians
nonsensically cry that the answer to the problem is more libertarianism!

Libertarianism is intrinsically stupid.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 16, 2010 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

G.Anderson, June 16 at 11:57 am, Fat Freddy, June 16 at 11:54 am, Samson, June 16 at 11:51 am, mrfreeze, June 16 at 11:49 am, RdV, June 16 at 11:34 am, Ed Harges, June 16 at 11:10 am, thecrow, June 16 at 10:46 am, Leefeller, June 16 at 10:42 am, psickmind fraud, June 16 at 10:37 am, BR549, June 16 at 10:20 am, & Kay Johnson, June 16 at 10:16 am,

Aside from the flotsam and jetsam of day to day bigotry, there is a “Serial Rape and Spillage” going on that is perpetuated by the big oil companies.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/867.html

Is it acceptable to focus attention on day to day bigotry or should “Serial Rape and spillage” be addressed by that vast population of bigots that are all self involved in demonizing each other?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

What is so had about economics?  please share with us
what libertarians know about economics that liberals
are unable to grasp, in turn we will teach art appreciation to ya all.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Freddy, America came into being with hands off
libertarian politics.

It wasn’t pretty, check living conditions at the end
of the ninteenth and into the twentyty centuries.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, June 16, 2010 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Like a deer paralyzed in the headlights of an SUV bearing down on it, congress and the President seem unable to do little more than watch the Gulf Disaster unfolding.

They have no sense of urgency.

Yes they have asked some pointed questions to oil company executives that were beyond their comprehension. But however much those oil companies CEO’s, squirm on T.V., it will be cold comfort to the hundreds of thousand of rightfully angry Gulf Coast Residents, who are in the process of losing everything they own.

Despite President Obama’s assurances that B.P will pay, those residents understand that no matter how much BP pays, it won’t restore a way of life, or give these people back what has been taken from them. It also won’t protect them from BP’s, legal and political maneuverings to screw them even further.

This is yet another example of the federal government’s abandonment of its own people and the belief that throwing money at our problems is going to fix them.

When it fact it’s been the government who created them in the first place, by selling out to the plutocracy.

If anything is crystal clear from the Gulf disaster and Katrina it is that the people of this country are on their own.

They are just something to be manipulated or to be watched from a safe distance.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges

Are you listening Ed Harges? The only reason these companies get so big is because of government. Name me one, any one, monopoly that has ever existed, for any sustained period of time, without government intervention. Free yourself from the chains of Socialism and learn economics, and not that Keynesian crap everybody was tricked into.

No Libertarian ever said anything about letting “rich people” do whatever they want with their money. Please refrain from Straw Man arguments or provide citations. Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, not arnarcho-primitivists. But I guess asking an educated, intelligent liberal to do some research is just asking too much. Economics is hard. Arts and crafts is much easier.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, June 16, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

“What’s with the president’s war analogy on the oil spill? It’s as if some alien force, “The Invasion of the Slippery Sludge,” suddenly attacked us.”

The left still doesn’t get it with Obama.  Otherwise, the answer to this question would be obvious.

There are two sources of blame that get attached as soon as this disaster becomes less anonymous.  One if of course BP.  Obama is still paid good money by the oil companies.  And Obama has acted like this from day one. One can bet that on day one Obama wasn’t taking calls from Greenpeace about what to do.  But one can easily guess that BP was on the phone with Obama.

The entire response has been very BP-friendly all along. Its only now as the tide of popular revulsion is rising that Obama is now trying to find ways to distance himself rhetorically from BP.  But even then, he does it as little as possible and his actions are still very BP-friendly.

So, this is deliberately framed in such a way that BP’s responsibility for this is ignored, and the disaster instead just becomes some ‘natural’ event that we must all somehow deal with together like a hurricane or an earthquake.

The other source of responsibility lies within our government.  Across our government, and not just in MMS, the government is way too friendly with business.  Our government views enabling business to be its primary job.  And Obama had plenty of time to change this, although he’s now trying to dodge that blame in ways that would make Slick Willy proud.

Interestingly, the citizens have consistently objected to and opposed off-shore drilling.  There was one set of candidates advocating “Drill, baby, drill” in the last election, and they lost badly.  Unfortunately, Obama was lying when he said he had a different policy, and we got “Drill, baby, drill” anyways.  Offshore drilling has been consistently unpopular for 40 years now.

Obama’s only goal in the first year of his administration has been to push for MORE offshore drilling in the gulf. The cries of those who know that oil always leaks and spills and that this someday meant certain disaster off our shores were ignored in favor of trying to generate more profits for the BP’s of the world.

When you think about all of this, its very easy to see why Obama wants everyone to think that this is some natural disaster that just happened and wasn’t anyone’s fault.

And if you think anything is changing, then look at what Obama is not doing.  He’s not doing anything to attached BP’s assets to insure payments for the damages.  That $20 billion escrow is a drop in the bucket. Undoubtedly arrived at in negotiations with BP as to what number they’d accept.  Instead, Obama should be starting to look at seizing assets and revenue streams to make sure BP will eventually pay its debts and not use some corporate re-organization and bankruptcy to dodge away. Of course, BP isn’t ready to do that just yet because they are still confident that they own our government and that their interests will be looked after ahead of the interests of the citizens of our country.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, June 16, 2010 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

C. Curtis Dillon - I’m afraid I must agree with you 100%. About your comment:

“This spill is a massive disaster.  But, if it had to happen, I am so glad it is dumping on all the sanctimonious hypocrites in the South who were and are all for the rape and plunder of our world in pursuit of a few pieces of gold.”

Yesterday on HP I had a long drawn-out argument with several of these folks who accused me of “blaming the victim” when I suggested that Southerners need to take a close look at themselves before blaming the President or the government. I was called every name in the book because I’m not buying the “our way of life is being destroyed” narrative.

These are the very “Americans” who want to celebrate the Confederacy, who produces some of the most retrograde politicians in the U.S., whose values are still stuck in the 19th Century and who repeatedly vote against their own self interests.

I’m truly sorry for what is transpiring in the Gulf. It’s a catastrophe and there’s going to be a world of hurt because of it.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 16, 2010 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

psickmind fraud, June 16 at 10:37 am,

With regard to “Rape and Spillage?”, could it be that it is serial “Rape and Spillage” that is the problem? —— Have a look at this video and determine for yourself:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/867.html

It appears to me that now we not only have serial killers working for their own perverted motivation, but that now we also have “Serial Rape and Spillage” global killers of the earth’s eco-system working for their own perverted motivation of maximizing profit by killing Gaia.

Report this

By RdV, June 16, 2010 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

It is just talk with Obama. He says the right things but his actions are always more of the same. That makes him even more reprehensible-because apparently he knows better but bows to craven interests cynically.

“A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe—that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why.”

  Laughable. He knew the score—what the MMS was up to was no secret and he appointed Ken Salazer, a big proponet of drilling. Now Obama tries to position himself when he echoed Palin’s words exactly “this new technology makes it completely safe.” He has been exposed as a more-than-willing dupe, and still it is business as usual.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 16, 2010 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

This is just like the financial industry fiasco: “Don’t punish us, because that will
cause our stock to nosedive, and then we’ll go bankrupt, and you’ll get no money
out of us—and meanwhile millions of innocent people will be ruined because
their pensions are invested in us.”

Are you listening, libertarians? This is why letting the wealthiest people and
corporations do whatever they want with their money doesn’t work.

Because when the richest corporations are allowed to do whatever they want with
their wealth, what they will surely do, just as soon as they can, is to buy the
government, essentially becoming the government— a completely
unaccountable, unelected government—- resulting in the very tyranny which
libertarians and other laissez-faire capitalists claim to deplore.

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, June 16, 2010 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

“Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al-Qaida”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/fool-me-twice/

Report this

By Can O Whoopass, June 16, 2010 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama’s appeasing the Confederate Dixie traitors a little too much and sooner or later they are going to find a “Monica” or some other petty “Gate” to slam Barack with.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 16, 2010 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

The government of the United States, should change its name to the Government of the United Lobbyists. For the Lobbyists, by the Lobbyists and is the Lobbyists.

Obama has been a grave disappointment to many who voted for him and don’t start up with Nader…. Nader again, our government is working as manipulated and thats the way it is.

Every angle of opportunity is taken and manipulated to squeeze blood from the people, thats the way it is.

Hope and Change were just a passing fancy, words used to fire up the people.  I am beginning to believe, if McCain and Palin had won there would have been little difference except the Republicans would have been the party of yes. 

If by accident like the slim chance of an oil well exposition, Nader had won, we would have had two parties of no!

Tao Walker stated it here on Truthdig and I restate it again for I find it most appropriate;  “We are all Indians Now!”

Report this

By psickmind fraud, June 16, 2010 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

I’m usually not one in favor of more laws, but watching the speech last night I kept thinking that one thing we need is a law making it illegal to buy up new technologies and inventions and put them in a closet, as the energy industries have done to protect their cash cows. 

The other thing I keep thinking when I see government officials is how much like Mel Brooks’ cabinet in Blazing Saddles our government has become.  harumph!!

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

ardee,

I almost forgot

including defense against corporations run amok

Would that be covered under: the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation?

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, June 16, 2010 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

Re: lyco, June 16 at 9:25 am

That’s funny, while you were picking apart Mr. Scheer’s sarcasm over the
situation, I was thinking how on target the article was. I mean, except for
snagging a few lines to spew about, did you even read the article? It appears
not.

We are ALL complicit here. How exactly did you also misinterpret Scheer when
he mentioned “satiate our consumer gluttony”?

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where you stand on this, because to make any
sense of your argument, the corporations are totally at fault and the sheeple,
who sit by and watch American Idol along with a nauseating array of ball
games, are all just victims here. You sound like a diagnosed closet liberal to
me.

Scheer’s article wasn’t partisan. It slammed both sides of the aisle, as well it
should.

Report this

By Kay Johnson, June 16, 2010 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

I, too, am sick and tired of the war/battle analogies.

During LBJ’s campaign against poverty—“The War on Poverty”—I was very
young, and asked my grandmother if that meant they, the government, etc.,
would kill poor people. My grandmother, a true progressive, did NOT agree
with the rhetoric, either.

As far as taking our country back—what does that mean? Take our country
back from what? The U.S. has been on this path for decades. Many of us, and
probably a great many truthdig readers and writers, have protested countless
issues over the years to no avail. Money talks—and the Supreme Court very
recently agreed.

Our own government, in collusion with Wall Street/finance industries and MIC,
amongst other corporate industries, lobbyists, donors and investors, are
responsible for this catastrophe in the Gulf. BP just happens to be in the hot
seat right now. Next month, it could be a different corporation.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

omygodnotagain

Finally, someone around here that understands the difference between business and finance.

However, I highly doubt your conspiracy theory. A good one is that a North Korean sub torpedoed it.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

ardee,

...but caused by your fellow Libertarians and Legislators with their hands out to corporate welfare.

Your Straw Man argument is about as artful as the President’s. Show me anywhere, that shows that Libertarians support any type of, what you call, “corporate welfare”. If you knew anything about Libertarianism, you would know that we are vehemently opposed to any subsidies, grants or any type of favoritism to any corporation or industry by the government. That goes against the free market principle. You keep confusing Libertarianism with Reaganomics, either mistakenly, or purposefully.

We support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. It would appear that BP is guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, in this case.

The police are not effective at preventing crime. All they can really do is arrest and prosecute offenders. Why would regulators be any different? Why should they try to be? If companies were truly held accountable for their actions, along with politicians, they would think twice about cutting corners. Like I said somewhere else, it’s not a lack of regulation, it’s a history of a lack of enforcement of regulations. If the police stopped enforcing laws, do you think crime would go up, or down? When people think they can get away with something, they do it.

...considering the history of our regulation free economy…

Now that’s laughable. But I guess to you, any economy that isn’t completely controlled by the government is “regulation free”. WTF country have you been living in?

The point remains that you preach the failures of regulation, caused not by any flaw in the concept

No, I preach the failures of government. Regulatory capture is a failure of governemnt. Lack of enforcement is a failure of government.

are the defense of the nation, including defense against corporations run amok, running the public education our youth so sorely needs, and running social programs for those among us in the most need.

Let me take these one at a time.

1)Defense of our nation: No argument, except that we spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. We also close our borders to people who come here, mostly, for an opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families.

2)Running public education: I would agree that education should be funded by the government, but, I would argue that our education system is failing because government controls it, and the monopolistic unions run it. Perhaps it’s time we took a look at Sweden’s educational system and tried to implement something similar. 

3)Social Programs: I would be inclined to support a “social safety net” type program, if we actually had one. What we have, is a system that highly discourages people from being productive members of society, that forces people to rely on government to feed, clothe, and house them, and strips them of freedom, liberty and dignity. The system we have is certainly not limited to those who are “the most in need”.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2010 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Has this worse oil gusher explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that has never happened before ever happened before?  Would you believe, Yes, and it wasn’t the Exxon Valdez spill, it happened in 1979 in 200 ft. of water and sounds like deja vu in the media: 

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/867.html

Report this

By omygodnotagain, June 16, 2010 at 5:59 am Link to this comment

What this oil spill has done is take the heat off the Goldman Sachs, Citibanks and others responsible for an even bigger disaster, the multi-trillion dollar explosion of our economy, and the massive debt it has created.
The Obama reference to 9/11 leads one to conclude,that it was an inside job, that Deepwater Horizon was deliberately blown up. That the fact there were issues made it a prime target for a 9/11 false flag operation, conveniently it was a foreign rig not an American one.
Surely, it has not been missed by the astute readers here that Haliburton was involved.
This episode was concocted to protect the financial community. Heard anything recently about Criminal charges against Goldman… I don’t think so.
Its not the corporations who own the Government it is the financial guys, they control the money flow and the publicly traded stocks.

Wake up smell the crude… the odor drift all the way to bankers.

Report this

By Bia Winter, June 16, 2010 at 5:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al-Qaida,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday in his White House speech, “and tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”

What utter BS!!

So, BRING THE TROOPS HOME TO “COMBAT” IT HERE!!!

Report this

By SoTexGuy, June 16, 2010 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

Sheer scores with this piece.. Bravo.

Obama’s speech was crud IMO. Listening to it vaguely rankled me.. Reading through it (it’s up at Michael Moore and elsewhere) practically infuriated me.. The pat on the back to our Nation’s heroes in uniform struggling to save us in foreign lands was just the beginning.. the entire thing is dreary and pedantic.. And lacks what we need to hear.

Or needed to hear.. Obama should have come out in the first days of his Presidency with an indictment of our oil and energy guzzling ways and put forward a real set of goals for newer, safer and cleaner energy. Our country and most of the rest of the world wanted and looked for some such bold stand from the man on Energy, Climate, War and Peace and more.. Instead we have something more like a redux of the previous administrations.. except with a more like able and articulate guy in the White house.

He could have done it just for the sake of politics! He’s supposed to be a smart man. Even if little had been achieved in the interim between then and now criticisms of him in the wake of this big spill would not stick to him. And now with the spill in the headlines obstacles to real reform would be much reduced. Not to mention that if we taxpayers had to buy major auto industries then those resources could have been turned to future goals as well..

Bush wasted and misused the energy and emotion of this country and the world that came from the 911 attack on crony politics and narrow political and regulatory goals and of course on foreign military follies..

The power and public energy Obama brought to the oval office (much of it a backlash to the Bush years) is likewise gone mostly for naught.

I’m unsure of the two of them.. who is the bigger fool.

Adios!

Report this

By lyco, June 16, 2010 at 5:25 am Link to this comment

Robert Scheer here commits two of the cardinal sins of liberalism: “The oil was minding its own business until some multinational corporations, enabled by a dysfunctional government regulatory regime, decided to wage war on the ecological balance of the oceans by employing technology that they were not prepared to control.”

No, Robert…, there is no “dysfunctional government regulatory regime,” rather the regulatory regime functions exactly as it it supposed to, precisely to enable the corporations to plunder natural resources.

“Cleaning up the oil spill mess we made by raping the environment to satiate our consumer gluttony is not a glorious battle against evil but rather obligatory
penance for the profound error of our ways.”

No Robert, corporations—not “we”—plunder the environment, and not to satisfy “our consumer gluttony,” but to make profits. Thus, in his supposedly critical piece, Scheer has blurred responsibility, absolving BP and the capitalist government from full responsibility for the disaster. This encompasses, in a nutshell, the liberal perspective of government as a neutral entity and a society not divided by classes, but by corporations and consumers, functioning on an even playing field. The logical solutions for the Scheers of this country are to patch up the “dysfunctional regulatory regime” and convince consumers to end their insatiable gluttony. What horseshit! This is why we will not see solutions to global warming or other environmental crises in our lifetimes.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2010 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

Fat Freddy, June 16 at 7:22 am #


ardee

What you described is regulatory capture, not deregulation, and you made my point for me.

Perhaps you might consider a name change; Artful Dodger sounds more appropriate considering your slippery avoidance of coming to grips with any central issues.

The point remains that you preach the failures of regulation, caused not by any flaw in the concept , not because regulation appears increasingly necessary with each passing news headline, but caused by your fellow Libertarians and Legislators with their hands out to corporate welfare.

The main purposes of govt, to me at least, are the defense of the nation, including defense against corporations run amok, running the public education our youth so sorely needs, and running social programs for those among us in the most need.

You may obfuscate with unecessary sidetracking all you wish. The facts remain that your argument is almost humorous considering the history of our regulation free economy, whichever silly label you wish to apply to it.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, June 16, 2010 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

“The war that needs to be fought and won is against
corporate dominance of every important aspect of our
political culture.”

Absolutely. And if liberals follow the screed in this
article, our strategy will be to sit it out and judge
it when the dust settles.

“What’s with the president’s war analogy on the oil
spill?”

Liberals don’t get it. We’re losing, folks.

Conservatives are merrily wiping abortion services
from the face of the earth, while we sit high-brow
and happy that women have the “right to choose”.
Choose what? Conservatives are merrily banning gays
from doing everything but breath. I know, let’s
undercut the President by quibbling about DADT.
Conservatives are now enacting laws that contradict
the Constitution in Arizona and next nationwide.

We’re drowning in conservative laws. So, now the
issue of the day is big oil, and what are we gonna do
about it, boys and girls? Really? Smugly rest assured
that NOW there’s a… wait, let me reference this
compelling strategic plan precisely… yes, we
finally have a “wakeup call”.

Good plan.

The President (maybe not as effectively as he could
have) tried to sell a skeptical country (see: Jindal,
Barbour, “Drill now, drill here”) to wake up, and the
liberal reaction is to undercut him, and speculate
that maybe now “everybody” will “wake up”. Huh?

Meanwhile, conservatives tried to pass a law to roll
back healthcare. Tell me, liberals are about to pass
a law pushing health care forward!

No, huh. But you’re real happy that little Bush is
pro healthcare though, right? How easily manipulated
you are!

The President declared war on big oil. Liberals
didn’t respond. So, who is to blame for tolerating
rape and spillage, sir?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 4:27 am Link to this comment

I agree that our federal regulatory agencies have
been victim to much cronyism over the last thirty years.
You pick a director, he in turn hires other partisans.
In some agencies most supervisory positions are by
appointment.

That is why that I say it is very important for
candidates to name their cabinets before elections.
It wouldn’t completely stop cronyism, but at least one
would get a feel who the president was going to surround
himself with.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

We have had some very honorable public servents that
never were in the public eye. There are some still
today, and they have a whole lot more than a half brain.

Report this

By bpgi666, June 16, 2010 at 4:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

War has become the clarion call for everything that happen to the USA. It’s bizarre, every event termed in a war context.The USG even makes up wars now. How’s this working out for us?It’s time to declare war on war.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

You bring up a good point, we have had both
capture & deregulation.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

ofersince72

He have so much talent in this country it is mind
boggling, no, most are not inside the beltway, but
there are many capable, knowledgable and educated
people with experience whose expertise never gets tapped

Who in their right mind would want to be placed under so much public scrutiny? People with half a brain in their head, want to stay as far away from the public eye as possible.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

ardee

What you described is regulatory capture, not deregulation, and you made my point for me.

Regulatory capture

Gamekeeper turns poacher or, at least, helps poacher. The theory of regulatory capture was set out by Richard Posner, an economist and lawyer at the University of Chicago, who argued that “REGULATION is not about the public interest at all, but is a process, by which interest groups seek to promote their private interest ... Over time, regulatory agencies come to be dominated by the industries regulated.” Most economists are less extreme, arguing that regulation often does good but is always at RISK of being captured by the regulated firms.

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R#regulatorycapture

Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

He have so much talent in this country it is mind
boggling, no, most are not inside the beltway, but
there are many capable, knowledgable and educated
people with experience whose expertise never gets tapped.

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2010 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

In truth, I couldn’t sit through the entirety of Obama’s propagandized attempt to portray himself as a real leader last evening.There does come a time when speeches, however well written, simply are not enough. I heard nothing, prior to my turning the thing off, regarding weaning our nation from its oil addiction. Perhaps I simply missed it.

I feel I must comment on Freddy’s rather feeble attempt to portray regulation as “evil” by citing an article in Wikipedia that is a paean to George W.Bush’s eight year destruction of our economy and our international reputation. A daunting task admittedly.

Bush appointed industry leaders to sensitive posts in regulatory agencies; leaders like the one in charge of mine safety, coming from a mining company whose accident record was an atrocity. Though he was not the first to do this,by any means, he cannot be painted as a regulatory President, not without receiving loud guffaws and, perhaps, some very ripe tomatoes as well.

Under GW Bush regulation became a joke, and it remains such today under Bush-lite,errr Barack. How one can possibly call for an end to all govt regulation, in the face of the events of these past few years and counting,boggles ones mind and raises the word “chutspah, to greater heights.

The purposive destruction of our economy by unregulated thieves and scoundrels in our financial community, and the possible ( probable) destruction of the entire Gulf of Mexico by a company ( three actually) allowed by a lack of regulatory presence to place in service a drilling platform with safeguards not working, should ensure that all reasonable people understand the value of govt regulation. Sadly,Freddie is apparently not within those ranks. I trust he remains alone in this.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

ofersince72

I understand the importance of real regulations, with real enforcement. Unfortunately, we have neither. Politicians in Washington have little practical knowledge of deep sea drilling, finance, economics, or business. Yet we rely on these people to protect us from the evil corporations, and to write and enforce the regulations. Most of the politicians in DC are sleazy ambulance chaser type lawyers who are never really held accountable. And one, simply replaces the other, and citizens argue over the false dichotomy of Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative, when the real argument should be Libertarianism or Statism. We see what Statism has done for us over the past 60 years. But, I guess if you keep giving government more power, eventually, they will be able to protect us. But who will protect us from government?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 2:45 am Link to this comment

This brings up another issue,  did any of you that
voted either Obama or McCain quiz their campaign
office on what their cabinet might look like, a dream
with of who they would like to see in their adminstration
cabinet????

  Neither party will offer this before elections, yet it
is most important to know just who the president is going
to surround himself with,  it played a very big part in
my decision not to vote for Obama. Wouldn’t it be nice
if , at their National Conventions , or even before,
that they made this public?

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

Freddy,  I am glad you understand the importance
      of our regulatory agencies, if we can just
      get them run by other than the industries
      that they are supposed to be regulating
      maybe some good things will happen

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, June 16, 2010 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

Obama’s laying out a textbook example of regulatory capture and blaming it on the failed philosophy of deregulation.

Yeah, deregulation my ass. Why don’t you people do your homework?

Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is quoted as the biggest regulator since President Richard Nixon.[62]  Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation.[62]  Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%.[62]

The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.

Franklin Roosevelt expanded government power from a relatively small base. Today the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and myriad other federal agencies are not only well established but have more power and more staff than ever. Increasing their reach should be easy. President Obama has President Bush to thank.

Wikipedia

Veronique de Rugy

Report this

By Litl Bludot, June 16, 2010 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

The gulf stream current, the one the “spill” is spewing over 100,000 gallons per
day according to one of the panel privy to what BP would allow to be seen, I say
the gulf stream goes from the gulf, around Florida, up the east coast and north
and across to Ireland, Scotland, the Orkney’s, and Norway. The oil will also be
picked up by current going to the mid atlantic. Take a look and pass it on:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Ocean_surface_currents
.jpg
This is just a taste of the environmental havoc the corporate world will be
unleashing from now on. 

The country elected a bullshit artist expecting what?  It’s only now that Scheer
and the rest of the crowd are beginning to see that Obama is a corporate brand. 
There’s no substance to the image.

Report this

By samosamo, June 16, 2010 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

****************


“”“It is unfortunate that money trumps all in this world.  I have
little faith that we as a people and politicians as a group have
enough intelligence to figure out what is right here.”“”
****************

Nothing will change, especially for the good because it can’t, not
with 7,000,000,000 humans and growing. We banter and carry
on, each and everyone of us, about how we can do this or
become less reliant on that or the good that will happen because
of whatever. With an unfettered growing human population that
is nothing more that an extremely malicious cancer, everyday
will contribute to more environmental and ecological
degradation which just so happens is the source of the real
energy for the fuel humans require for life.

I can only hope that in the future, when some real aliens visit
this planet, the remains of the dead will have coins, gems, paper
in the remains that would indicate they thought they could eat
money to live.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

Mr. Dillon , thank you, I was puzzeled.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, June 16, 2010 at 12:55 am Link to this comment

This spill is a massive disaster.  But, if it had to happen, I am so glad it is dumping on all the sanctimonious hypocrites in the South who were and are all for the rape and plunder of our world in pursuit of a few pieces of gold.  I love to see these political clowns spinning like idiots trying to walk the tightrope between their corporate masters and the public perceptions.  I think we all know the outcome of this episode ... some public chest thumping and wailing followed by a quiet return to the same old crap once the firestorm abates.  Just look at Alaska and their late, half-term governor to see how little they learned.  It is unfortunate that money trumps all in this world.  I have little faith that we as a people and politicians as a group have enough intelligence to figure out what is right here.  BP will buy everyone off and go back to their bad ways before too long.  I think we can bet on that.

Oh, ofersince72:  TruthDig buys an ad system from Google that looks at page content and selects ads based on keywords.  I doubt TD has much say over what ads actually get placed.  You see this behavior on sites all over the net.  It is not TDs fault.

Report this

By ofersince72, June 16, 2010 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Well then,  help us take our country back from them
please!!  The wake up call you speak of was long ago,
nobody woke up.

P.S. Why is Truth Dig accepting advertising money from
anti-union organizations??

Report this

Page 6 of 6 pages « First  <  4 5 6

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook