Exxon: Pouring Oil on Trouble Waters -- Part 5

December 19, 2008
Exxon: Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters -- Part 5
-AKA -
"Billions for Defense; Not One Penny to Pay Our Just Debts"

"The day" finally came.

The day we were going to find out if the Supreme Court was going to hammer Exxon and "correct" the 9th Circuit for halving the jury's award of damages or if, somehow, they were going to find a way to ratify that decision. Or ... some folks who had learned pessimism by being a part (the "victim" part) of this 20 year fiasco, actually believed that the Supremes might reduce it further. Our attorneys, the best in the business, however, had assured us that couldn't happen. That there was no legitimate way for the Supreme Court to lower the award further. That was one option we were not to worry about.

We had several days of anticipation as Supreme Court decisions were handed out over a few day period and ours didn't happen on the first day. Or the second. In fact, it didn't happen until the day the Court was ready to leave [get out of Dodge] for the season.

It wasn't until July of 2008 that the Supreme Court handed down its decision. It made its determination and sent it back to the 9th Circuit for implementation.

[To the tune of American Pie, please:] "That was the day that justice died."

The United States Supreme Court ignored everyone the 9th Circuit had ignored ... jurors, a long-term highly respected judge, the Constitution and common law that it provides we are to follow, the State of Alaska, the earth's environment ... and all of the people who live below the waterline. And then it ignored the 9th Circuit also.
In an announcement that left the hardest of hard-bitten attorneys in numbed shock ... the court chopped the remaining $2.5 billion award down to $507.5 million.

There are no words. It is as manifestly unjust as anything I have ever witnessed the court system doing. It was not only legally wrong, but it was morally wrong. Indeed, it was the first time I have truly believed that the Courts have been so politically packed that they are now simply part of the corpocracy. They are not a check and balance. They are not an independent judiciary. They are bought and paid for politicians. And they have committed an act of overt evil.

Then, just because it could, Exxon took the plaintiffs and rubbed their faces in it one last time. They argued to the 9th Circuit that because the Supremes said that $507.5 million was all that could be awarded ... that meant they didn't have to pay the 20 years of interest on it either.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys were so defeated and destroyed that there was no fight left. We filed pro forma motions with the 9th Circuit explaining that, once again, Exxon was simply flatly wrong legally. But no one's heart is in it. And no one even seems to be able to care how the 9th rules. We are arguing over the pennies to place on our closed eyes after having lost fortunes. It really makes no difference.

For the tiny amounts that the Supremes said we could have; we settled with Exxon for 75% of them. I have no clue what leverage Exxon had left to deny paying the entire amount the Supremes said they had to. But they proved that the courts would do pretty much whatever the Big and Powerful asked for and there was no fight left in any of us. When the elephants play, the grass gets trampled. And we were all, ultimately, the grass.

So the checks are starting to arrive. Little tiny checks. People's lives and livelihoods had been ruined by Exxon beyond hope of repair or salvation. All they were left was the knowledge that at least Exxon was going to have to pay ... and pay enough that they could afford to retire (after 20 years of waiting and scraping and scrimping and taking new jobs at middle age for which they weren't trained, some still trying to eke out a living catching what fish they were allowed by Fish and Game as the Department tried to manage PWS to revive the fish stocks). Many people have been clinging with their fingernails so long to keep from the total financial collapse that just letting go and crashing and burning is better than continuing to try to hold on.

And now, the Courts have stolen their retirement also.

I used strong language above. I speak of the courts committing true evil and stealing from people. I believe that to be true. But I wish to make one point extremely clear here. Although I do believe what the courts did was wrong ... horribly, terribly, immorally wrong, and that the Exxons of the world have "bought" our courts and did prove that they can "buy" [what one might still euphemistically refer to as] "justice"... I do not believe that the individual justices were directly bribed nor do I have any suspicions or accusations about any particular justice or justices who personally "sold" their decision. I don't know what all other criteria the individual justices considered; or indeed, the courts in joint session considered. One may not want to know such things. If you wish to enjoy your meal, stay out of the kitchen! But, largely, although I think they were horrendously, clearly, and demonstratively wrong ... I believe it most likely that the justices believed their votes were "right" and that their decisions were made without substantive improper motivations.

I do not wish, with this series of articles, to accuse either the justices of the 9th Circuit or of the U.S. Supreme court of malfeasance or improper abuse of office.

The Supremes do suffer from institutionalized arrogance. Because they have "the last word" ... ie: there is no where to appeal their decisions. They are very proud of the quote that:

"We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final".

These checks won't hurt. Some folks may manage to pay down a credit card bill or even buy a truck. But we ended up, after 20 years, with less than $500 million of the $5 billion that the judge and jury had said was legally ours. Justice delayed is justice denied. Especially when after two decades of injustice, the courts put the decimal point in the wrong place and overtly deny it as well.

The plaintiff attorneys are brilliant people who are at the top of their game. They had secured one of the greatest of all time verdicts for one of the most deserving groups of victims. This isn't tobacco legislation where people got sick and died because they decided to smoke. This isn't a McDonalds case where the plaintiff put a cup of scalding hot coffee between her legs and then squeezed.

The fishermen and other plaintiffs had done absolutely nothing wrong.

In this situation we had totally innocent plaintiffs, unlike almost all mega-award cases (which somehow seemed to survive this appeal process ... the tobacco companies for example virtually all decided to settle; they didn't have Exxon's "make war not peace; win at all costs and hurt the other side as much as is humanly or, more precisely, corporately possible" mentality).

The plaintiff attorneys had put their political lives and careers (as well as their reputations and financial futures) into this case and had defended it through the most violent of legal storms that could be unleashed by a behemoth that had vastly more money to throw at this than almost anyone in the world. If one could buy "justice", Exxon was going to do it.

In a con job worthy of anything Alice believed before breakfast Exxon tried to convince the world that they had done nothing wrong either! Although many (most?) news outlets were not easily flim-flammed, Exxon clearly has the power and influence even with the media to get its story out.

Exxon argued (argues) that Hazelwood, Captain; or God, An Act of; were the only reckless culpable parties. In English ... the only ones who did anything wrong. So that, therefore, only Hazelwood and God deserved any blame. And if Exxon didn't deserve any blame, they certainly didn't deserve any punishment.

It is important to understand that for legal purposes a corporation is an entity that is legally construed (for essentially all purposes) as a "person". I personally am not convinced of the wisdom of such exalted treatment to an entity that one can create on a piece of paper and the stamp of the appropriate state office in a few minutes, but it is a concept with much history and is well-settled law.

So Exxon, although a corporation, is legally capable of wrongdoing and being punished for such wrongdoing. To carry an analogy much farther than it should go, the Board of Directors, officers and executives are the "brain" of the corporation which sometimes cause it to do things that it shouldn't; much like our brains do with us. So it is the corporation itself, not its officers nor directors, that was found liable for causing damages by its negligent behavior and was assessed punitive damages for its reckless behavior. [Captain Hazelwood was also found liable of these things, but a judgment against him is not worth the paper it is printed on as he has nowhere near sufficient assets to satisfy such a judgment. But Hazelwood and Exxon were found jointly and severably liable which means that each is liable for the entirety of the damages awarded by the jury.]

And it is the corporation which [who? :-)] was trying to make the case to the public (and hiring marketing firms to do so), that the entities at fault were simply God and Hazelwood; not the corporation. But if the corporation was negligent (!), it was not reckless (which is the critical issue regarding punitive damages and such a determination was necessary in order for punitive damages to attach).

Let me be crystal clear here. This is a critical point. We can debate whether we think Exxon was reckless for putting a known drunk at the wheel of an oil tanker. But our decisions are (and should be) irrelevant, because the jury; those whose duty it was to decide and who were in the best position to decide, did decide. Exxon, itself, was reckless. This is no longer solely an opinion, it is a determined matter of law that even the Supreme Court has no legal ability to change.

It was reckless for an additive plethora of reasons, the primary one of which was that they knowingly placed a fully loaded ~1000 foot, 212 ton, tanker filled with 56 million gallons of the worlds ugliest (tarry, high sulphur content, etc.) crude oil under the control of Captain Hazelwood while it traversed some of the most pristine environmentally sensitive areas of the world; at night (it was almost exactly midnight when they missed the gap and hit the reef) ... knowing that he had a substantial drinking problem and a history of incredibly poor judgment. Exxon had paid for Hazelwood's alcohol rehab treatment in 1985, but made no follow-ups of any sort: no post-treatment evaluations or counseling, no monitoring of any sort.

Instead Exxon immediately put him back in command knowing as they admitted at trial that "a captain with a substance abuse problem was a recipe for disaster".

Hazelwood's driver's license (for automobiles, not supertankers ... although one would think if he wasn't considered capable of entrusting an automobile to, it is difficult to imagine that handing him the keys to a crude oil carrying supertanker would be fine) had been revoked or suspended three times between 1984 and 1989 by the State of New York for alcohol violations. In fact, at the time of the spill, his driving license was in suspension because of an arrest in New York for driving under the influence in September of 1988. This information is routinely reported to employers and is generally a requirement that it also be reported to the employer by the drunken driver himself. It is virtually inconceivable that Exxon did not know that at the time they told him to drive one of the largest and potentially most destructive vehicles in the world ... he could not legally drive to the docks to board the vessel.

Exxon senior management was proven to have received multiple and continuing reports between 1985 and 1989 that Hazelwood was continuing to drink to excess openly; indeed publicly. Exxon took no actions of any sort in response to these reports, except that his superiors would drink with him!.

In 1989 (five years before the trial and before Exxon's lawyers and P.R. people got everyone in the company's management "under control", the Chairman of Exxon specifically said that putting Hazelwood in charge of a supertanker was a "gross error"). Not just a negligent mistake, mind you, but he specifically admitted that Exxon had made a "gross error". There are many ways of saying "reckless" for purpose of punitive damages and other legal issues. "Gross error" is one of those equivalent terms. An "error" equates to "reckless" which might make them liable for compensatory damages, but does not make them liable for punitive damages. But "gross error" is the same as "gross negligence" which is the equivalent of "reckless". Therefore, by the admission of Exxon's own chairman ... Exxon fit the criteria for punitive damage liability.

Further, at trial five years later, after having been heavily coached, an Exxon manager testified that Exxon's policies, despite their knowledge of the risk to the public of the "catastrophic" results of a supertanker accident, allowed a relapsed alcoholic to command an oil tanker which left him (the manager), given "Exxon's attitude towards alcohol", with "no policy to protect the safety of the public".

There was other testimony regarding that and other aspects of Exxon's general recklessness in shipping out of PWS (breaking federal fatigue laws, departing into heavy ice conditions at night to save money, etc.).

But I don't need to try to prove that Exxon was reckless. I noted at the beginning of his section that it was reckless as a matter of law that not even the Supreme Court has the power to change. That is because the jury so determined. And once a jury makes a factual determination (which this is construed to be), that issue is not appealable.

The way our system works is often misunderstood. But since the right to trial by jury is paramount, only the jury is allowed to determine facts. [Which makes practical sense as well ... it is only to a jury that factual disputes are presented. Only the jury (and trial judge) hear the testimony and watch the body language of those speaking and are privy to so many things that can't be captured in an electronic record, that it would make no sense to have an appellate court attempt to redetermine the facts of the case.] Additionally, in this case, there was no question but what there were highly competent lawyers and experts on both sides making sure the evidence was properly presented and done so in as favorable a light to their side as possible. And the jury determined that Exxon was reckless.

What is appealable is the "law". That is what the lawyers argue to the judge about and what the judge ultimately includes in his written (and spoken) jury instructions. If the judge was incorrect on the law ... if he made a ruling (regarding an objection to the admission of certain evidence, for instance) that was wrong legally, or if an instruction regarding the law given to the jurors was wrong ... that may be appealed.

But whether Exxon was reckless or not, may not be appealed unless the judge gave incorrect instructions regarding his jury instructions regarding how they are to determine whether conduct qualifies as reckless. No one has seriously argued that the judge got the law wrong on this issue. (I say "seriously" instead of just saying that no one argued it ... because it is possible that Exxon did argue it at some point. But no one took it seriously and no appellate court ever suggested that there was a problem with the formulation of the law.)

Presumably, in fact, that is why the Supreme Court had to leave in the award some amount of punitive damages. They too were bound by the jury's finding of recklessness. (That said, even though they couldn't legally touch the fact that punitive damages were appropriate, in their consideration of "how much?" they effectively did by the back door what they could not by the front.)

The general public, however, was not so bound. Exxon argued vociferously to the media and anyone else outside the courtroom who would listen, that it was not reckless.

There is an old theory that if you can obsfucate an issue sufficiently, then no one really understands what is right and what is wrong and assumes everything is gray and that whatever the courts ultimately decide is probably right. Because we as a nation, perhaps more than any other on earth, respect and honor our judicial system.

Indeed we believe in it in a way that we seldom even think about but that folks from other countries really don't ever seem to understand. Other countries have legislatures to pass laws and an executive branch: presidents or other administrations to carry them out ... but in perhaps no other country is the court system relied upon so strongly, and believed in so fiercely, as the third leg of out government and the one most important for preserving out freedoms and protections from oppression. In the words of the Australian commedian/singer Fred Dagg: "You don't know how lucky you are, mate, you don't know how lucky you are."

Sadly, despite the intellect and apparent nitty-gritty willingness to claw and scratch and give their best fight no matter what the arena, the plaintiff attorneys proved to be idealistic optimists after all. They believed in the system. Even after so many, many years of delay, they too, honestly believed that although the wheels grind slowly, that they grind exceedingly fine and that justice would ultimately prevail. They believed that we were a country of laws and an honorable court system and that raw money and power could not buy justice away from those to whom it belongs if the forces of good gave it their all. I would not be surprised to see the major law firms that have gone so far out on a limb for those below the waterline in this case to be shuttering their offices. Some will stop in the bankruptcy courts that they had practiced in. Others will simply go away.

Because they were wrong.

Exxon proved, gloatingly, to the world, that we no longer live in a country of justice and law. Instead, we live in a corpocracy and the Exxons of the world run it. And they glory in proving that they do.

It is conceivable that a justice was bribed. Exxon certainly had the money and we've seen a lot of outright bribery by oil companies in Alaska. And justices don't make enough money to be above financial temptation. But I have no evidence nor even real suspicions that such happened.

I believe what happened is that the insurance companies finally purchased the judges they want on the bench (judges and justices do not believe in the concept of punitive damages or if they do, they believe they should be severely limited). But they did this ... well ... I am not alleging that they did it in any way that was not legal. There are ways within the system to "purchase judges" without committing a crime.

Continued:

Palinography -- An Alaskan's View of Sarah Palin

September 16, 2008

Palinography -- An Alaskan's View of Sarah Palin
If I were just a slight bit more naive (alternatively: less cynical :-) I would be shocked; yes shocked(!) I tell you, at the facts presented to the nation by the punditocrats (that isn't a misspelling, it is a distinction in at least connotation from "pundits") about Governor Palin. Although I have great admiration for the blogosphere and delight at the effects that it is having on the dissemination of information to the public and its watchdogging of the mainstream media ... for purposes of this article I must lump the blogs in with the punditocracy. In general they have done at least as bad, and arguably a worse job, of presenting an even semi-accurate portrayal of Palin to the nation.

I have, however, had sufficient encounters with the press to understand that, even when they actually attempt to be fair, they aim for truth from 100 yards with a 12 gauge shotgun. They may get a few pellets in the target, but only a few. When they don't attempt to be fair (true of vastly too much reporting and, by definition, true of all editorializing), they don't even aim the shotgun in that direction.

If you have ever been present at a newsworthy event, whether an automobile pile-up or a public demonstration or anything else ... you were probably amazed at how inaccurate the next day's newspaper reports of the event were. If it has only happened to you a time or two, you may have passed it off as an anomalous screw-up. Let me assure you, there is nothing anomalous about it.

If you have read my posts on, say abortion or Bush's War, then you know that Sarah Palin and I disagree vehemently regarding many basic issues. I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative. Nor am I, by any possible stretch of the definition, an evangelical Christian. I would have to ponder to find a social issue upon which the Governor and I agree and it would, in any event, be a very short list. What we do share in common is that we are (essentially - she arrived as a baby) life-long Alaskans with many similar interests. Ah ... if one wants to call it a social issue, that does bring into play one upon which we agree. Like all "real Alaskans" [more on that later], we are staunchly opposed to gun control. But I think that may be most of the list :-)

I am therefore uniquely suited to bring you the unbiased view of the vice presidential candidate. I am in political disagreement with essentially all she stands for on social issues. I am in fervent disagreement regarding the war and how we conduct ourselves internationally. But I have enough "local pride" that an Alaskan is making history that I am not going to attempt to kneecap her. I think you will find this a refreshing change. To date, essentially all reporting I have seen on Palin since her name was announced, has been ... well, the term "lousy" comes to mind. Most appears to be an attempt to belittle and/or destroy her.

It is unreal: in a state in which she fairly recently had an unheard of ~90% approval rating, that almost all the emails that circulate purporting to be from Alaskans, the quotes from "Alaskans" in the news and the blogs, is dismissive, indeed viciously dismissive, of her. I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone left in that 10% who didn't "highly approve" of her and the job she was doing that hasn't been found and quoted! The state has been overrun with reporters. They seem to be behind every rock and tree. It is worse than tourist season! :-) If you want to get on the national news for your 15 minutes of fame ... just wander around Anchorage or Wasilla until you find a camera crew (it won't take long) and say something negative about Palin. Then, suddenly you will find yourself in the national news and your name will soon show up on Google!

The only other picture that emerges [this is how the punditocracy believes it is performing "balanced reporting"] is from the evangelicals. They tend to be nearly as inaccurate as the dismissers.

So, for an honest look at Governor Sarah Palin, stick around. We'll be right back.

Governor Palin: "Take this cash and shove it!"

March 21, 2009

Take this cash and shove it! Palin has cojones!!

"Oh woe, oh wail, oh moan, oh groan."
"How could she do something like this to our children!?!"

"All she is concerned with is her national reputation; she doesn't care for the people of her state."

My word people! Calm yourselves. Seldom have I seen so many people (who truly ought to know better) in such a tizzy over the actions of a Governor of our Great State. You'd think she was out burning down schools. ["Well she might as well be; it amounts to the same thing!"] Yeah, yeah, I hear you. I think you are nuts, but I hear you. You are getting your point across; it is not necessary to shout so.

So what is this dastardly thing that our gutsy Governor is doing "this time"? She is saying "thanks but no thanks" to what amounts to ~31% of the federal stimulus money that is available to Alaska.

What?!? Turning down free money? Is she nuts?

Apparently some people with very big mouths and very loud voices think so. Oddly [:-)] this are the same people who criticize everything else that she does -- including running for Vice President and thereby "neglecting" the State. And of course these people would have reacted exactly the same if had been solid Democrat and previous Governor Tony Knowles that got tapped for the opportunity to run for V.P. as a Democratic candidate when he was Governor. No ... there is no philosophical consistency to their arguments. They'd have been out in the streets cheering Tony on and babbling and bubbling about how great it was for Alaska to have that sort of national exposure.

It is always the same mouths. I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said that if you just don't have the time to study up on all the issues and make a truly informed choice at the ballot box, to find a reliable bozo and just vote the opposite from how he or she votes. [Pelosi comes to mind on the national political field. She is as total a bozo as have ever been spawned and I can't imagine ... I take it back. There probably are areas where we would agree. I am neither a Republican nor a conservative. But Pelosi is an unadulterated idiot so you'd still be on the right side of most issues so long as you take a position opposite whatever hers might be on any given subject.

We have such people here on the statewide political scene as well. I don't need to name names. Just pick up any newspaper and see who is quoted with the loudest moan and wail about how Sarah is destroying education in Alaska ... or whatever gripe they have with her turning down the "free money". And then always listen to that person and vote the other way on any issue.

Because this is that type of litmus test. Those who are aghast that she would turn the money down are the idiots ... bozos ... that will be wrong on virtually every issue. At least on every economic issue.

See, here's the thing. I've been grumbling about this to anyone who would put up with me [:-)] for as long as I can remember; this automatic accepting of all money offered (and often begging for more), regardless of the long term consequences and regardless of all the strings that come attached to the money. I have been waiting for someone in the Governor's chair to have the guts to "just say no" all of my adult life. But until Sarah Palin came along, we didn't have any Governors with guts. But this lady has got them.

Despite my earlier reservations ... defending her from vicious false hatchet jobs but not truly backing her because we disagreed on so many things ... I think this may have made me a convert. Oh, I'll still disagree with her when she's wrong [:-)]. But she proved to have big-league cojones when she broke up the cozy little Big Oil/oiled legislators club ... something every previous recent Governor had either been in on or had winked at or to which they intentionally closed their eyes. But she charged in without any hesitation and with no regard whose head fell. If they were corrupt, she wanted them rooted out. And she did it! She dragged in the F.B.I. and helped them get their investigation going and helped them in other, quieter ways, as well.

And, along with some rich oil barons and lesser known conspirators, the probe she started has now succeeded in bagging its 11th trophy. Beverly Masek just pled guilty to taking bribes from Big Oil while in office and specifically in exchange for killing a bill that she herself had introduced! She is the 11th conviction to date. And, so far, all of them were Republicans. And they are all staring at bars ... or having nightmares about soon staring at bars ... purely because Sarah Palin had the guts to not play slimeball. There was so much money and power that she took down, I'm honestly amazed that she's even alive.

The fact that it was her own party that took the brunt of that assault has kept Democrats remarkably positive about her and Republicans have a difficult time criticizing her for breaking up what was completely unambiguous selling of votes.

This time it is different. Oh, she still gets huge points for cojones; only this time it is mostly Democrats who are opposed to her refusal to take "free money" (although not a lot of Republicans have had the guts to jump on the bandwagon with her). Doesn't matter. She is doing what it right. What all thinking people know is right [at least regarding the forest ... she may have a few trees in the wrong group]. But conceptually we all know that

1) the money isn't "free". It comes from the pockets of the taxpayers in this country. The government as no money except that which it takes from us or that which it prints which causes inflation thus devaluing what money we do have and is the same, only more insidious, as taxation.

2) that we shouldn't take money that has a lot of strings attached which effectively give the feds a lot more control over decisions that should be made by the states [you want to talk about buying votes ... that's exactly what the feds do with the money they dangle at us.] They say "You want this, you can have it ... only you have to run the schools the way WE want you to, not the way you want to." Every previous Administration in the State has said, "Oh, ok, cool" and we get idiotic bureaucrats sitting at a desk in Washington D.C. making up rules for how Alaska's Bush schools should be operated ... instead of the people who know anything about the Bush, the existing school systems, the people who attend them and what they really need to be effective. But every previous Governor has stepped right up to the trough. It is embarrassing besides being stupid. Governor Palin even had the unmitigated audacity to flatly say [what most of us know but are too mealy-mouthed to say]: "To me it's just a bribe". Awesome, Governor. Absolutely awesome.

3) that we shouldn't take money that is going to get us into programs or bridges or anything else that we are going to have to fund once the feds leave after supplying the "seed money". For every building that we build with federal dollars, we end up having to maintain it (and keep it warm and lighted and cleaned); for every government program that we start that people begin to depend on ... we have to pay to keep them running when the federal money goes away. It is like a drug. In fact many people have declared that it is the most addictive of all drugs. But when the feds dangle the cocaine baggy in front of your nose and you already have developed a "taste" for the stuff ... you take it. And when it is gone ... we don't just quit the habit. Instead we reach into our own pocket to buy more ... to keep the program going.

WE ALL KNOW ALL THIS! But so few politicians have ever had the guts to say "no thanks". We will be paying for the addictions developed by previous administrations for a very long time. Three hurrahs for Sarah for not adding more. [Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi turning it down?!? :-D] It's ok. You can laugh. It really was a joke if it wasn't such an expensive one. All Alaskans reading this: Thank Whoever It Is That You Thank that we have Sarah as Governor instead of Nancy.

Great job again Governor Palin. I'm very rarely impressed by a politician. But this time, I am truly impressed.

On behalf of all rational people everywhere ... thank you Governor.

Barack Obama

Ed. Note:

Good Article Directories are not perfectly neat and orderly and organized (though hopefully they aim in that direction), but rather are a lot like life: tangled up, overlapping and inconsistent! Several articles, for instance, are primarily about Sarah Palin but mention Barack Obama. If the mention is substantive, the article will probably show up on both directories. If mention was made only in passing, the directory will probably pass him by as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most helpful [not :-)] Irish (Belfast) response to an American's complaint that he'd lost his job:

"Well, Obama is looking for people who know how to pay tax."
``````````````````Still Construction Zone! Please Drive Carefully :-)``````````````````



....................................................PRESIDENT OBAMA.........................................................

An unlikelier scenario is difficult to imagine. If presented to a publisher as a potential novel or a producer as a potential movie; the writer would have been laughed out of the room.

It isn't amazing that we have a black President. Colin Powell probably could have had the position if he'd wanted it. [But see: General Powell; Fatally Flawed] Nor, following the disastrous and frankly stupid actions of his predecessor who claimed to be the "most like Ronald Reagan" since, well, since Ronald Reagan, it is not surprising that we elected the most left-wing President in history. Some of his horrendous Big Government cradle-to-grave welfarism and similar proposals are simply unthinkable, which is primarily why I opposed his election.

[In fairness, George W. Bush invaded a country that didn't even have a saber to rattle at us and plunged the U.S. into a morass in Iraq (shocking and awing, apparently, only Bush and his advisers. Bush really thought it was "over" when he boarded the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner; a level of ignorance that is way beyond shocking and awful.) He destroyed the government's balanced budget and financial stability and crashed the country into what isn't (yet) called a major Depression (seniors who lost half of their life savings with the 401K crash aren't as bashful), all because of delusional idiocies and listening to delusional idiots, was at least as unthinkable.]

The possibility remains that, like Bill Clinton, Obama will be a surprise and do some things that only a "liberal" could do to right our economic ship of state. Sort of the "only Nixon could go to China" concept. We shall see.

DIRECTORY FOR ARTICLES ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA
[Just click article titles, below]

1]~ Palin Potshots - Mythed Again ....................................September 17, 2008

2]~ Obama Advertising .....................................................September 21, 2008

3]~ Let Sarah Be Sarah .....................................................September 27, 2008

4]~ The Three A.M. Phone Call .........................................October 6, 2008

5]~ McBama the Debate .....................................................................October 7, 2008
6) Obama Coming at You !


Overview Commentary:

Obama was elected by the media. If it doesn't scare you that the punditocracy has that much power, it should.


He may turn out to be a great president. But that has nothing to do with the fact that if the media (and I include the "co-opted blogosphere" -- those with links and revenue deals with the "old-fashioned" media) hadn't been his combination cheerleaders and bodyguards, I don't think he'd have had a realistic chance at the office ... at least not this time around. In four years with a little seasoning, maybe. But he was handled with kid gloves while Hillary was shredded and McCain largely ignored. Bizarrely, Obama's only real competition (after ousting Hillary) was Sarah Palin who, despite awesome charisma, an uncanny ability to connect with the everyday voter and enormous positive qualities, was sufficiently unknown that the media could get away with a hatchet job and stacks of lies the likes of which I've never seen. [Maybe it happens a lot ... in this case I just happened to know a lot more about Sarah than virtually anyone in the media and virtually any of the readers from the "Lower 48" ... so this was the first time I'd seen such a level of pervasive disinformation.]

I clearly don't know as much about Obama as I do about Palin but I believe he did hang with some shady characters. I mean, do you know those folks on the Harvard Law Review!? :-) Actually though, he is a product of the Daley Chicago machine and I don't think there are any unshady people involved in that organization! And, despite the media howls; he does "pal around with terrorists". Youngsters [;-)] who, in the 60s and early 70s, weren't really cognizant of what was going may not understand. But overthrow of our "fascist" government was a huge plank for the radical left-wing, home-grown (albeit with foreign "advisers") terrorists. And Obama's pals have not even renounced their past or suggested that their beliefs have matured at all. A terrorist who doesn't change positions is still a terrorist ... whether they are currently strapping on suicide bombs or not. But this country has an amazing ability [not necessarily a good thing :-)] to elect people regardless of who they pal with. Kennedy was on a first name basis with Mafioso he clearly shouldn't have been.

No, my amazement that we elected Obama is the bizarre synchronicity of it all. Here we are in our biggest worldwide war against radical Muslims since; well, "we" weren't, but probably since the Crusades. And we elect someone with the strongest Muslim background of any president in history! We went to the "war that makes Viet Nam look like a peacekeeping mission" against a Hussein; now we have elected one as our president! We're actually in two wars. The principal player on the opposing team in the "other war" is Osama. I'm quite sure that we've never had a president prior to Obama whose name was that close to Osama.


Anyone named Barak, or similar, who heads a Muslim nation, should be concerned! :-) I presume that Omar Barak, autocratic head of Barakistan; a tiny nation with lots of oil [don't bother Googling, I made him up], is less nervous now than when Bush was president. I'm not sure that is wise. Obama hasn't exactly been sounding like a pacifist. He just thinks we picked the wrong war. Of course much of that was presumably political posturing rather than "the real Obama".

Indeed, that's part of what worries me. I don't know that any of us know who the "real" Obama is. I can't shake the feeling that he's not; that he is the puppet and the real question is who we elected that pulls the strings.

As you will see from some of the articles, there is a major problem that has been noted by several important people and then quickly swept under the carpet. Obama is an apostate. You don't have to be a fundamentalist Muslim for it to be your moral duty to ... well ... I don't even want to talk about anything that might make Joe Biden president! :-) But read my apostasy posts and see what the punditocracy is hiding from you on that!

Also, although initially, I thought it was just the wing-nuts ... as I've studied and watched the "evidence" come in ... I'm convinced there is an extremely good chance that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be president! [I also believe it likely that he had no idea that he was until recently.]

There are multiple lawsuits on that issue ... if he was born in Hawaii, all he has to do to put the whole thing to rest is to produce his vault birth certificate. Granted, he shouldn't "have" to and he didn't. But his failure to quickly and easily put that issue to bed cost him a bunch of votes and politicians do many things they don't "have to" in order to gain votes! And ... well, the accusers did make their prima facia case that he was ineligible. I'm not so sure but what the burden should shift at that point to the candidate who is requesting the privilege to lead us to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to do so. Obama most certainly did not succeed in doing so if the burden of proof was on him.

As alluded to, I have a hunch that he was told by his mother that he was born in Hawaii and probably just believed that until this all exploded during the election. I think there is a good chance he was as surprised as anyone to find out he was born in Africa. But again; I'm afraid that if you disqualified him now, Biden would be president. And he is a far worse choice than Obama!

So Obama is our President and assuming (hopefully) that he survives, will be for four or eight years. So ... whether fervent backer or loyal opposition ... I think we need to expect that President Obama is here to stay and to act accordingly! At the moment, count me as part of the loyal opposition. If he gets too crazed with the power of Big Government ... we'll shorten that to just "opposition". If he doesn't go nuts on nutty issues like trying to ban firearms or completely socialize medicine ... I could end up a backer! I'm not betting on it, but I agree with him on many issues (eg: of course we should pursue research from embryonic stem cells! That is just a "duh" to me.) And I strongly disagree on many things with Sarah Palin (eg: I'm quite sure evolution managed just fine without any divine or other guidance and to teach out children that guided evolution is a valid theory is preposterous) ... I just disagree with each on a very different set of issues!

Above all, remember the ancient Chinese curse: "May You Live In Interesting Times". Because we definitely are. The next four years are going to be a wild roller coaster ride. Hang onto your hats! :-)