A MeanMesa "Quickie" - Just Keep Filing the Court Case

Many information challenged Americans -- perhaps better in this case, conclusion challenged Americans -- see the refiling of the Obama Administration lawsuit in Federal Court as no more than "folly" in the attempt to delay further deep ocean oil drilling.  Naturally, the affluent "judge class" of our citizenry is deeply invested in the oil business, making the rejection of the first filing a foregone conclusion.

If you are a giant oil corporation, your favorite tools will be 1st: a drill rig, 2nd: a clutch of conveniently owned Senators, and, 3rd: a few Federal Judges who happen to hold major stock in the industry.  Also, somewhere in the bed of your pick up truck will be a nice collection of toothless, meth snorting, porno gobbling, MMS regulators.

MMS (Minerals Management Service -- a subsidiary of the Interior Department) had been very carefully "re-engineered" under the autocracy's blind loyalty to the industry giants.  Things were so stinky that the name of the thing has recently been changed to:

BOEMRE - the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

For a brief run down of what all has happened to this case so far, we can take a look at an excerpt from the New York Times report:

Court Rejects Moratorium on Drilling in the Gulf

By JOHN M. BRODER

Published: July 8, 2010

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Thursday turned down the Obama administration’s effort to enforce a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled shortly after a hearing in a lawsuit filed by companies that claim they are being financially crippled by the suspension of drilling. 

The Interior Department said the moratorium was necessary because of the uncertainties about the cause of the BP oil well blowout in April, a shortage of response equipment and a need to write strict new drilling rules. The moratorium was struck down by a lower court on June 22 by a federal judge who found it arbitrary and economically ruinous to industry. 

The appeals court found that the Interior Department failed to show the federal government would suffer “irreparable injury” if the moratorium is lifted while it appeals the trial court’s decision. 

Read the whole story HERE

The lawsuit was "tweeked" and refiled within a few days.  MeanMesa, the residents of the Gulf and the rest of the United States are all waiting to see where it goes this time.

Of course, the "bite and grab" neo-con pundits were quick to snatch this latest opportunity to discredit the Administration.  Notably missing, however, was even the most shallow alternative proposition. 

Oh well.  What's new?

This posting is directed at these "alternatives."  Exactly, what else could the government do in this case?  Let's "take it by the numbers."  We're looking at some professional misdirection here.

1.  Public Opinion and the polls

Americans are convinced that more deep ocean drilling under the same safety regulations as the ones in effect on the DeepWater Horizon is not a sensible choice.  The story has been clouded and obscured as much as possible by BP and other players -- including some really skanky Senators and the Limbaugh/Murdoch corporate media frauds.

Folks like us are, once again, flying blind, but our common sense tells all of us that we definitely don't want another rig disaster like this last one.  Government action is demanded.

2.  Mysterious Technology

The usual suspects in the "suppression of truth" have been hard at work.  They want, more than anything more sensible, to instill in us the idea that the "down hole" technology question is cosmically beyond anything we might even remotely understand.  Serving the interests of their masters, the proposition that there is  -- or could be -- a simple, comprehensible set of safety regulations must remain beyond our reach.

Otherwise, the Obama Administration could simply say, "You have to do all this stuff or you can't drill any more exploratory wells like this."

We're not talking about all the stuff they have tried in their failed attempts to cap the well.  This would be a list of blow out preventers, acoustic shut down valves, casing rams and the like -- all stuff which should have been put in place as they were drilling this well in the first place. 

That would be too easy.

3.  Expecting the Regulators to Regulate

Even if there were to be a credible list of routine well safety instructions, we are now convinced that there were NO regulators who could be trusted to be much more than oil company lackies.  If the safety and well control stuff cost money, these losers would instantly turn the other way.

This scheme unquestionably started with the "black ops" energy meeting that Cheney held soon after the Supreme Court had installed the autocrat.  The details of that meeting are still no where to be found.  They apparently are even beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

Hell, we don't even know for sure who was there!  We can, on the other hand, assume that the IRAQI HYDROCARBON TREATY was discussed.  We know where that went.  A short wish list of increased profits from eliminating a bunch of expensive safety stuff would have hardly even been noticed -- if anyone were watching, that is.

It is an attractive possibility for the Interior Department to simply go to each of the 33 deep ocean wells named in the Federal lawsuit and check to see if they had all of this expensive safety stuff in place.  However, if you can't trust the industry to tell you what SHOULD be there and you can't trust the "regulators" to tell you what IS there, the moratorium is the best choice left.

4.  A Few More Outrageous Lies About the business hating, Socialist, Kenyan Negro

Deep in the bowels of alleged cranial matter -- the mess that is under the "hats and hoods" of the hill billy and bigot "shock troops" of the neo-con variety -- a lie has been repeated often enough as to become truth.  The lie is that Obama's campaign accepted massive "donations" (spelled b-r-i-b-e-s) from BP.

The truth is that lots of BP folks contributed individually to the campaign.  If you, as a MeanMesa visitor, have ever done this, one of the questions required by the Federal Election Law is that you state the name of your employer.

The "bite and grab" crowd "adjusted" such information to come up with the stinky, "bought and paid for" idea about Obama being in the pockets of big oil.

The facts be known, all sorts of unexpected "employer" information emerged during the election.  For instance, the military -- usually portrayed as a homogenous group of Audie Murphy eager beaver patriots -- actually contributed to the Obama campaign six times as much they did to the geriatric war monger on the other side.

A Personal Last Note

There is plenty of information about what is happening in the Gulf available.  It takes a little searching and discernment, but it is there.  What is unfolding in this nightmare is everybody's business.

Do your part.

Get informed.  Stay informed.

Don't get hornswaggled by neo-cons lies.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

A MeanMesa "Quickie" - How to Create "Truth" Without Really Trying

MeanMesa watches with discouraging fascination when fastidiously unchallenged, neo-con "nobodies" are allowed to just wallow a bit deeper into their interview loungers as they pump forth a seemingly endless flood of carefully crafted half truths and outright lies.

For example, in the week leading up to the final passage of the health insurance reform bill, otherwise marginally credible, Republican Senate and House leaders incessantly prefaced the "half truth" portions of their "interviews" with great, strident "lie portions."  One of their favorites was the constant repetition of the idea that the "American people have spoken, and they don't want this bill."

We can assume that these knuckle dragging Luddites are, at this very moment, ramping up to present similarly deceptive pronouncements for the upcoming debates on banking regulation, cap and trade laws, climate change and every other proposal from the Obama Administration which might stagger down the pike.  For them, both the content of interviews and and unfortunate facts which might lie behind them are mutable substances validated not by the reality all around, but rather, by the political opportunities such deceptions might present.

However, MeanMesa feels that such irresolute comments might need a bit more examination before they are discharged to the waste bin.  Such positions can actually boast such a small demographic support that a dedication of half of all interview broadcast time to such nonsense seems a little suspect.  Of course, there is the obsession of the "pundits-in-charge" that "two sides of every issue" must be presented to "inquiring minds," but even more disturbing in the apparent conviction among the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Anne Sweeney that when television "news" viewers hear that the "American people have spoken, etc."  often enough, they will accept it as fact.

Such statements are not the products of poor communication, confusion or subtle misrepresentation.  They are lies.

Perhaps an additional note is in order here.

Although well informed MeanMesa visitors are already familiar with the Australian fascist, Rupert Murdoch of Fox Network Fame, there may be some understandable confusion with the other name in our complaint, that is, with Anne Sweeney.  Anne Sweeney is actually only the Queen Pretender of the ABC Network.  The actual regent lives far away in the Magic Fairyland Palace of Disneyworld.  The King's name is, of course, His Majesty, Roger Iger, Rex Divinius.

Under His Majesty's leadership ABC has gone to great lengths to promote itself as a trustworthy source of objective coverage in matters of news and current events.  Nonetheless, so far as MeanMesa is concerned, the corporation remains horribly soiled by some of its, uh, embarrassing improprieties in its past.

The Disney Corporation owns the ABC Network.

"Embarrassing improprieties?"  Let's add another example.

Well, frankly, yes.  Such a complaint may seem to be yet another example of MeanMesa careening off the tracks, but ABC, you may recall, very generously and eagerly broadcast a full length "movie" which placed the entire blame for the 9/11 attack squarely on the shoulders of the previous President, Bill Clinton.  Oh, and by the way, there were no commercials in that 2 hour long stink session, either.  The entire tab was "picked up" by Disneyland elves, an undeniable act of  generous largesse and patriotic dedication which completely and utterly vindicated the traditional ideas of "country first," that is,  as they say, "putting your money where your mouth is."

MeanMesa suggests that good parenting practices, at this point, would require a serious scrubbing -- perhaps with a stiff brush and plenty of Comet Cleanser -- for both the money and the mouth.

The wretched "movie" was simply another case of hoping that when something, no matter how unsupported by any facts whatsoever, is repeated often enough or dramatically enough, it will slowly migrate to being credible.

What's the point?

Whether the drooling blather of unchallenged lies in an interview or the "easily inserted" outrage of an entire "movie," the media fraud remains relentlessly committed to the possibility of saturating information challenged voters with this rancid flatulence.  ABC and FOX should not be considered the only defendants in this charge, either.

However, MeanMesa thinks that there might be an even larger point to consider here. 

So, what's the larger point?

The FCC, as it was licensing these parasites, extracted a promise from them to somehow "serve the public interest."  This part of a network's license agreement represented a paltry yet important compensation for "handing over" some section of the public airwaves for their exclusive use.

Beyond this easily neglected responsibility, however, lies one even more fundamental.  The Constitution relegates great protections to what is termed, within it, the freedom of speech and expression.  The question is straightforward.  Are there "duties" associated with those "rights?"

After all, contracts, in this case our Constitution, are structures of agreement with respect to the "rights" and "duties" of the parties.  The networks have rapaciously exploited their "rights" derived from Constitutional protection  for their free expression, but have they accepted even so much as a single iota of responsibility to also perform their "duties" to do so in the public interest?

Quite possibly, within this analytic, these reckless acts of relentlessly and cynically promoting such media fraud are a bit, well,  Un-Constitutional.  In fact, perhaps more than a "bit" Un-Constitutional.  Perhaps, outrageously Un-Constitutional.

Conclusions, conclusions...

The ongoing frenzy of this now well established media fraud is setting a foundation for the end of this Republic.  It represents an incredibly well funded corporate move -- one eagerly funded by some very unpleasant players -- to permanently divide our nation.

Is this just another one of those wandering geriatric rantings about the "Good old days?"  Hardly.  Left unchecked, these corporate "news" moguls seem to be intent on being the authors of the last chapter of the history of American democracy.

God.  What are they thinking?