Monday, January 26, 2009

US AND OBAMA

from murph

Yup, we're married now, for better or worse, in sickness and health, we are married for at least four years. Unless we want to talk about a divorce, we are going to have to get along with each other. After having lived through 8 years married to the mafia, this should be a piece of cake. I know that my cynicism over this marriage indicates that I distrust this government, just not quite as much as the Bush years. However, we got him now, got to make the best of it.

As in any relationship, there has to be mutual trust. With the Bush years, it sure seems to me that there was no trust on either side of the relationship, except in the case of the hard line civilian neocon advocates, whose numbers rapidly dwindled as time went on. Now we have the hard line Obamaites with their complete trust in the relationship.

Obama campaigned on the promise of change. Of course, I really don’t remember any campaign where change wasn’t mentioned. But, Obama made it a mantra to the great enthusiasm of a great deal of the populace. The change is supposed to be away from the excessive policies of the Bush administration. Of course, a large percentage of the population wants a change from the dreadful Bush years.

To a large extent, it depends on what changes are made, how extensive they are and how successful they are to keep this marriage going. What I question is just what changes the general part of the population really wants. I suspect that, deep down, what the population wants is a return to the blue light specials and happy motoring that they were used to. They of course, don’t want to deal with escalating cost of living, depressed housing prices, and high cost of fuel, unemployment and depressed wages for blue collar labor. Hell yes, makes sense. But, do we agree that this is going to be possible, that we can go back to what was? This is answered by what paradigm, what part of reality you believe in. I think that despite whatever intentions Obama has, the majority of the population will soon be disappointed and disillusioned with his administration because we are constrained by reality (as I see it anyway) from ever returning to what we had in the past. So despite Obama’s intentions, this country is again going to be disappointed.

Here is where the trust comes in. Depending on what people envision in whatever changes need to be made, trust in the new administration will not last long because this administration is not going to be able to meet the expectations of the general population. This is the problem with our politics in general and campaigning in general. To win elections and gain initial general support, you have to exaggerate what you will do if elected, and minimize the not possible stuff. Despite the intentions of the candidate, this is true. And, if we get a candidate who is a liar and does not have the population’s best interest at heart to begin with, we are going to get a whole bunch of shit when they are elected, as evidenced in the last 8 years of Bush. The only way Obama could get the initial trust of the population was to make promises, even if they could not be met. Can you imagine how popular he would have been if he had campaigned on the idea that all of our natural resources are depleting faster than they can be renewed, that we are going to have to radically change our way of life, that we are going to have to scale back our standards of living, that the current crop of bankers need to be eliminated from the society. He wouldn’t have gotten past the first weeks of the primary. Look at the policies that Ron Paul advocates, most of which I can agree with. He can hardly get out of the starting block on multiple attempts, despite his grass root support.

So the trust in our relationship with Obama has to be mutual. If he really advocates the necessary changes, will the population still trust him? I doubt it. When it comes down to the bottom line, the population does not want real change; it just wants one set of bums they don’t agree with out of power. Is the general population really going to reject greed, massive effects of entitlement with individual wealth, and excessive government control in the name of security? Remember when Carter was president, and warned us that this was going to happen? He was ridiculed, cursed, and driven into the margins of history on that issue alone. If Obama starts advocating austerity and having to lower standards of living and radical changes of existing life styles, the same thing will happen. If he started to really prosecute the criminals leaving the white house, the divisions in this country would intensify; I would suspect into violence.

So the end of this is whether you trust this new administration to do their best for us, the population, or not. No matter how well intentioned Obama is, no matter how much support he is able to keep, we are not going to reverse a national paradigm of the last 60 years in 4 years. That paradigm of greed is good, that we can have whatever we wish for, that we deserve all the benefits we have, that infinite growth is good and possible, is only going to go into reversal by situations over which no one has control and for which there are no solutions.

The best that I can hope for and trust in this new group of power people is that if they really do have the welfare of the population as the center of their policies and actions, that they can manage to soften the landing we are headed for as we fall off the cliff of unsustainability. Despite his charisma and intellect, he is not going to restore the happy 90’s of excess and spending. It is perhaps unfortunate that our leaders are unable to voice such sentiments. If they were, we could have been preparing for the last 30 years and suffered far less than we are sure to suffer in the future. So once more, just what do you trust Obama to do or not do? Really want a Las Vegas divorce this early in the game?

From freeacre:

Building on the “trust” issue, I am reminded of the scene in the movie when Jack Nickelson says, “Truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Trust works both ways. In any event, it needs to be earned and can be expanded upon in steps. We can decide to trust him so a certain extent, and see what happens. So far, so good, in my book.

But, he also needs to be able to trust us. How much truth are we as a nation going to be able to handle? I think he will be experimenting. Will we take the ball and run with it when he opens up the vaults that hold the formerly secret information? Will we “Be the Change” that we want to see? Will we begin to waste less? Drive less? Produce things again? Or will we go back to our slumber and just piss and moan in the face of scarcity? Will we once again wish we could just bomb any country that has resources that we want to exploit? Demand bailouts that are impossible to repay? Give the “Federal” Reserve more power? Whatever. The dye is cast. The collapse will happen – fast or slow.

We need to see what he will do. And, I think, he needs to see what we are willing to do.

Hopefully, there will be a transformation in this country after we experience the hardships implicit in the fast crash scenario. The best case scenario would be that we could build a society based on the traditional harmonious ways of the original people who were here when the pilgrims landed, combined with some of the best innovations since then that would work in the new paradigm. The worst case would probably look like FEMA camps and the corporate New World Order imposed by the goon squads.

We are walking a tightrope here. Personally, I plan to just put one foot in front of the other and hope to get to the other side. That side is gonna be free. It’s going to be sustainable. And, it’s going to honor those who have died to make it so.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, both of you.

And you're right. Most people just want things to go back to normal, i.e. 90's normal, before the Bush cabal made mincemeat out of the constitution, the economy and started wars for Halliburton. I think the majority of people in this country have absolutely no idea what's going on in 'Murika or anywhere else in the world -hell, most people I know have no idea what Halliburton is and don't care in the slightest. What info they do get, is from the lamestream media, which means they are totally uninformed or misinformed. And because the majority of the population's clue-bags are empty, I think we're in for a world of shit.

But, here's something I'm sure we'd all like to do.

http://dailybail.com/home/2009/1/25/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following.html

It's freak'in hilarious!

-Dude

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

Some well thought through points here Murph. When you wrote “Really want a Las Vegas divorce this early in the game?”, then who would the American people marry in his place. You have already mentioned what happened to Ron Paul. Perhaps no one would be a better option?

Freeacre wrote “We need to see what he will do. And, I think, he needs to see what we are willing to do.” He has had eight years to figure that one out.

freeacre said...

Inspired, Dude! The link to the song is great, too! That's the first rap tune I've liked - ever.

Finally, the energy level of the working class is starting to ratchet up. Gotta a feeling it is too late, though. Congress already got a 90+ to 1 ratio of letters against the bailout and did it anyway. Probably going to take more than writing letters and throwing shoes...

I don't think Obama or anyone else in the govmint is powerful enough to go up against the banks. I just hope he can help us avoid WWIII. Nuclear winter would play hell with the garden, that's for sure.

I gotta admit that today it feels all too depressing. Just read another final posting from Survival Acres and combined with what's on cryptogon (the couple who killed the whole family after being laid off from Kaiser) and then the woman who just had 8 children at once (what the hell are they thinking????) - well, I just want to go to bed and pull the sheets over my head.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

I would like to juxtaposition two articles here, one regarding Ahmadinejad’s recent scathing attack on Obama. The other is the US’s policy from the Nixon era re OPEC and how this reportedly affects the exploitation of the ANWR oil finds.

First let’s discuss the recent events in Iran. Whether Ahmadinejad holds the ultimate power or whether he is just the mouthpiece for the regime is a moot point. He responded to Obama’s remark that America was willing to offer Iran the hand of friendship if Iran would unclench its fist, by a vehement rhetoric of Americas’ history with his country. These included: overthrowing the elected government in Iran in 1953; the support of Iraq in the Iran / Iraq war. The implication here was that Saddam was supposed to defeat Iran with US help and then the US would destabilise Iraq, split it into smaller units all beholden to the US and then America would control the two largest oil producers after Saudi Arabia and stand at the door of Russia
He also accused the US of continued support for Iran’s enemies (Israel).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7856630.stm

So what is behind this David and Goliath, toe to toe diplomacy? It seems to me it is a question of negotiating from a position of strength rather than adopting a policy of appeasement and reminding the US that if Iran extends its hand, then there has to be a trust the Iranians can believe in. This is equivalent of holding up the yellow card for fouls committed in the previous game but disturbed confidence is not easily set aside and trust has to be earned.

Lindsey Williams is a Baptist missionary who spent many years in the Alaskan North West Region (ANWR) where he eventually attended board meetings with the world’s decision makers (PTB). With all the mixed skills of an evangelical minister and a cheap market auctioneer he holds his audience on the hook without ever quite making his point. When it eventually came it was in three parts. Firstly the world’s power brokers are those who also control the World Bank and the IMF. This was not the surprise to me that he was clearly expecting it to be. Secondly, Kissinger’s round of diplomatic largess, particularly with the Arab and Muslim world centred on America’s promise to take all the oil that the Middle East could produce and make the Sheikdoms rich beyond their wildest measure provided they agreed to two conditions. The first of these is the well known one that all oil exports to the USA and any third countries must be paid in dollars. The second claimed condition was that oil prices would be regulated in order to allow supplying nations to pay off America’s rolling national debt. This means everyone who gasses up their tank or who buys a plastic washing up bowl is paying an additional hidden tax on already taxed income. It is the claimed reason the poor can never get out of debt as money trickles up; why the FED has no compunction about keeping the money presses and the digits rolling ever onward and upward and why $1.50 per gallon oil from the ANWR cannot be pumped until every Arab well is dry. If you don’t already know you will not get too many points for guessing the only two nations to stick a finger up in the general direction of the esteemed Mr Kissinger were Iraq and Iran.

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/lindsey-williams-the-energy-non-crisis—alaskas-classified-oil-reserve-largest-on-earth/

Two things were omitted from this discussion, which were Iran’s known abhorrence to the crime of usury and the effect that continued oil usage is having on the depletion of other world resources including water.

If these things are valid, they will be well known to Iran, which has no intention of being both culpable to the crime (as they see it) of usury, as well as one of its victims. This would explain why Iran is not extending the hand of friendship and embracing Obama around the shoulders whilst Obama’s free hand is aiming in the direction of their balls. In this modern Mexican stand off, Obama will need all of his diplomatic skills to defuse the situation without blinking first.

murph said...

Belgium,

Notice that when this happened with Lindsey, it was in the 70's. The question then becomes what has changed since then.

I have read about the reserves in Gull Island area. Noting I have seen so far indicates there is enough crude to supply U.S. needs for 200 years. And, he fails to mention that world oil production is sold on open market. Not so sure it would last us 200 years then. Also, his statement that there is enough oil for 200 years would indicate that at our present usage that is a reserve of 3.1 trillion barrels.

Ghawar oil field by year 2000 had produced a bit over 51 billion barrels. http://www.gregcroft.com/ghawar.ivnu
If that is only 1/3 of the total reserve that would be 1.5 trillion barrels it started with. So U.S. reserves are double that? Not likely. I have seen no other data to confirm that, so I can't say with certainty.

I had listened to his rap a few months back. There is something about his presentation that doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's the Baptist preacher delivery, not sure. It seemed like a mixture of some known facts and some conjecture and wistful thinking to me. I also find it hard to believe that he would be included in these top meetings and given information like that. Again, I just don't know but it smells a bit fishy to me.

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is struggling to hold on to power, although I have read stuff that indicates he is more mouth piece than director. Wonder who the CIA will get installed next?

RAS said...

Funny how Carter can call for sacrifice and get pilloried, but Obama calls for it (albeit a lite version) and gets praised. The wonders of charisma...

Kissinger may be an old man but he should be charged with war crimes.

Murph, I think they get the 3.1 trillion barrels and 200 year supply by counting up every single presumed reserve of oil shale and tar sands. Which are never going to be produced, of course, for multiple reasons.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

I tend to agree Murph, I am not religious so I too am not drawn into the rabbit hole by his engaging southern drawl and evangelical style. I too wondered about his inclusion at such high level meetings; it doesn’t gel with me. It is like the Bilderbergers inviting Alex Jones or Keith Olberman to sit in as an official observer but like you, I can’t say he is wrong. I will make two points regarding the figures. The first is that 200 years seems a too convenient off the shelf figure, it was not 180 years or 225 years. 200 is just as likely as any other figure but again it doesn’t feel right. The more interesting omission was that the figure was just presented flat without additional riders, ie not at ‘present rates of usage’ or at ‘accelerated rates of usage’. Let us take it at the lower figure of present rates of usage and taking Prof Albert Bartlett’s observation that world oil usage doubles every ten years, then from the mid 70’s to now is approximately 35 years so oil consumption now would be somewhere around 12 fold what it was when Lindsey Williams first came on the information. This would put the ANWR reserves somewhere around 3,100,000,000,000 / 12 = 250 billion barrels which is about five times the size of the Ghawr field. They always said it was big but who knows? Rather than the size of the field, the thing that struck me in his presentation was the assertion that oil prices were being manipulated to nullify the US national debt which, if true, can only encourage uncontrolled financial recklessness. Until, that is, Joe cannot afford to use his SUV to get his six pack and people cannot afford to go to work.

Anonymous said...

And now, let's hear a little ditty from my man, Dennis, the real president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_-QRKyu6g

-rockpicker

RAS said...

whoa, are they trying to say there's 200 years worth of oil in ANWR? Even the most optimistic estimates of the reserves there that I've seen suggest there are only 6-9 months of supply there. (Assuming you could suck it all out with a straw.)

I applied for another job today and had to take one of those damn 'personality profiles'. One of the questions was about how many politicians I think our honest. I screwed up and answered it honestly. Oops.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

The Moscow times likes Obamas solution for recovery but adds a rider that any schoolchild can see why it won't work. He is doing all the right things without changing any of the wrong things.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1040/42/373780.htm

Anonymous said...

Gee-zoy! I'm reading the paper the other day and there's this article about a woman who gave birth to eight "little darlings" (insert sarcasm) probably due to furtitity drugs, which shouldn't be administered to anyone, in my oppinion. Then today I read that this same woman or couple has six other children!!! I type again, SIX OTHER CHILDREN! Why on earth would someone have that many children and why is it allowed?!! Have these people ever heard of population explosion? Overshoot? Resource depletion? Geeeeeezzz!!! Talk about empty clue-bags! Sorry, I'm justa bit pissed. Oh, and media is celebrating this event and this crazy couple. These people shouldn't be rewarded -they should be steralized and put in prison for causing damages to the earth. Assholes!

Ok, I'm done ranting. As you were.

-Dude

RAS said...

Yes, she now has 14 children -and she's single! OMG. They were all produced by IVF according to the news special I watched last night. She had 8 embryos left over and didn't want to have them destroyed so she had them all implanted. Leaving out the medical ethics implications of this (which are significant; many very prominent fertility doctors are accusing the hospital and doctors of malpractice, and I agree with them) lets looks at the rest: those children are going to have MILLIONS of dollars of medical bills. The mother does not have millions. The state is going to end up paying for it. Those kids are going to need all kinds of special programs, which again, the state will pay for. Then, unless they live on a farm (and they don't; I saw their house on the news and it's a suburban ranch house) they are going to be on welfare forever to provide food. Is this ethical in any sense of the word? What kind of moron is this person? There is no way she is going to be able to support these kids. She's never going to be able to have a job. How would she pay for daycare for 14 kids?

I won't lie. I would love to have a housefull of kids. But I would never give birth to that many. And I would not even adopt them unless I could support them.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

Ras, two quick things; maybe a life of not working and being supported by the state is the object of the exercise. Second, know any car manufactures that make a nine-seater SUV, this woman will be rich beyond her wildest dreams; she could even end up paying tax.

Anonymous said...

My fantasy is that they will name a new mental illness for her, and they will belatedly come up with some ethical sanctions that will disallow this travesty from now on...and she sells the children. What a world.

RAS said...

Belgium, if she thinks raising 14 kids isn't going to be work, then she really is out of her head!

Anonymous said...

From Belgium,

Lolo Ras, I take the point but you know quite well what I meant.

freeacre said...

I don't know about you, but I can use a laugh about now.

Credit to Ruppert's site for this one:

"Ben & Jerry have created a new flavor, known as "Yes Pecan!" for Obama. For George W. they asked for suggestions from the public.

Here are some of their favorite responses:

Grape Depression, The Housing Crunch, Abu Grape, Cluster Fudge, Nut'n Accomplished, Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfu***r... Swirl, Iraqi Road, Chock 'n Awe, WireTapioca, Impeach Cobbler, Guantanmallow,
ImPeachmint, Heck of a Job, Brownie!, Neocon Politan, RockyRoad to Fascism, The Reese's-cession, Cookie D'oh!, Nougalar Proliferation, Death by Chocolate... and Torture, Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream, Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder, Credit Crunch, Mission Pecanplished, Country Pumpkin, Chunky Monkey in Chief, WMDelicious, Chocolate Chimp, Bloody Sundae, Caramel Preemptive Stripe, I broke the law and am responsible for the deaths of thousands . . . with nuts"

Hahahaha! I needed that.

Anonymous said...

I don't know, Ladies and Gents, but I'm not too thrilled with Obama's picks. Yeah, I know, it's only been a couple of weeks, but the last thing we need running the show are tax cheats. If you or I had not paid our taxes, well, we'd be somebody's bitch in prison. But rich people?... Naw, the laws don't apply to them, you see. Then there's Summers, Jones, Timmy, Clinton -geez, a slew of retreads and foxes to gaurd the hen houses. Just wonderful.

Then we have Gen. Petreaus and his buddies telling Obama "Ah, no, we're not going anywhere." The bastards. They should be fired and retired for crap like that. Hell, Bush and Rummy fired everyone who didn't agree with them, but Obama's not allowed? Oh, that's right, he's a democrat. Only Rethuglicans can do whatever they want and to hell with everyone else. Crap!

Israel is still wasting brown people because it says so in THEIR book. Geez -makes me want to hurl. And "Kaleefornea" is broke -wait, didn't Aaaanold win because Grey Davis let the economy slip a bit? I'm going to blow chunks!

It's getting deep people! I'm having to wear my boots 24/7!!

Ok, I'm done ranting.

As you were.

-Dude