Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Deepest Horizon of Suspicion”

« Hope and Change From India's Left | Main | The Shape of Stings to Come »

May 30, 2010

Deepest Horizon of Suspicion

Hatched by Dafydd

Would President Barack H. Obama be moving more swiftly to put the full weight of the federal emergency system behind stopping and cleaning up the Gulf oil spill -- if the region affected comprised liberal Democratic states? Could the president of the United States be that cold-blooded and vindictive against one particular part of the country, a region he particularly detests because of long-past racism and current conservative leanings?

As usual with liberals, when we allow our thoughts to pull us where the evidence seems to lead, we sound paranoid; we back away, embarassed at even thinking such a thing. Who could imagine such a vicious plot... it must just be a curious concatenation of coincidence.

Liberals routinely rely upon that natural tendency, hatching conspiracies so bizarre and brazen that nobody would ever believe them, from attempts to nationalize much of the Amerian economy to wild orgies with White House interns in the Oval Office (rather, the little room just off the Oval Office). Even Republicans like Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt scoff at the "conspiratorial" ideas of "lunatics":

That Obamunism might include deliberately wrecking our capitalist economy with unsustainable debt, just to pave the way for a liberal-fascist, public-private "partnership," à la Venezuela or Japan;

That ultra-liberals might welcome a flood of illegals into the country, reasoning that once they're mass-naturalized in a bona-fide amnesty (not like the legitimate path to citizenship proposed by George W. Bush and John McCain), they'll vote reliably Democratic;

Or that the American Left actually wants to see America lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be repeatedly humiliated by Iran, Russia, and China, and to be driven away from our allies in South Korea, Europe, and of course Israel, all the better to "humble" us and drive us, out of desperation, towards supporting greater internationalism and the leftist dream of one-world government.

But at some point, we must ask the fundamental question: Can all the damage inflicted upon our country from the left side of the aisle, over the past century or more, be attributed to mere incompetence? Are the relentless heavy shoves all in the same direction just coincidence piled upon happenstance wrapped with synchronicity? Or at some deeper level, does the Left -- and today, the people surrounding the president or even the Man himself -- intend the consequences they consistently provoke?

I once spent an entire year keeping track of the number of times a restaurant bill was added incorrectly (this was in the days before all such bills were computerized). During that year, I received fourteen misadded checks; thirteen of them were mistaken in favor of the restaurant, only one in my favor.

It's tempting (easier, less truculent, not as scary) to suggest that such improper arithmetic is just a silly error; but if so, then shouldn't the error be in the customer's favor roughly half the time? When the errors so overwhelmingly favor the restraurant, the "null hypothesis" is effectively disproven. At that point, the most reasonable conclusion is that the misadditions are deliberate, not random.

Similarly with the incessant "missteps" and "incomprehensible errors" and "foolish mistakes" in domestic and international policy from the most liberal (or leftist) administrations: When nearly all, virtually without exception, trend in the same direction -- towards more government control at higher and higher levels of organization, cutting against individual liberty and local control -- then it's hard not to conclude that pattern matches the "Misadded Restauant Check" fallacy; and that the curiously coincidental errors are not such coincidences after all.

There are five American Gulf states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The first four voted against Barack Obama by a whopping average of 58-42; now Florida is clearly trending back Republican after its brief flirtation with radical "hope and change," restoring the solid conservative, Republican South.

And this very day, Obama is enjoying another vacation, his second (!) since the BP spill began just 41 days ago. Yet he still hasn't ordered the most obvious responses, from directing the Army "Corpse" of Engineers to help Louisiana build barrier sand berms, to using fire booms to burn off the oil, to sending in oil tankers to try to scoop up the 20.7 million to 32.7 million gallons of oil that have erupted into the Gulf so far (the Exxon Valdez spill was a paltry 10.8 million gallons), to at least considering using powerful explosives to plug the well. (At least the president, never shy of bragging about the wonders he's going to perform, hasn't even mentioned the possibility.)

Is Obama merely a fool, or is he willfully dragging his feet because the primary victims of the disaster are by and large anti-Obama Republicans? Is this his way of punishing them for their apostasy against the One We Were Supposed to Have Been Waiting For?

Democrats might not like the implications of that question, but I say it demands an answer.

Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 30, 2010, at the time of 2:17 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4430

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Karl

Of course, Michael Medved's response is that Obama can't possibly hope to be re-elected if he ruins the country.

This assumes that he...
a) believes in his heart that his proposed changes will ruin the country, and
b) is not willing to sacrifice his career for a deeply held principle.

Consider: If the President and a majority of legislators were devoutly anti abortion, and had the chance to ram through a Constitutional amendment banning the practice, how many would consider being voted out of office in the next election an acceptable price to pay?

Medved and Hewitt seem to think Obama won't make the ultimate sacrifice for anything. What if they're wrong?

The above hissed in response by: Karl at May 30, 2010 5:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Karl:

I keep meaning to (and forgetting to) ask: Are you the same Karl who occasionally posts on Patterico's and more often on Hot Air's rogues' gallery?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 30, 2010 10:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: brotio

Great post.

One other 'conspiracy' to consider, is, that the more catastrophic this spill becomes, the easier it will be to further restrict drilling - everywhere.

The above hissed in response by: brotio at May 31, 2010 7:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd,

Another thing to consider.

Doesn't BP stand for British Petroleum?

Seems Obama doesn't care too much for the British.

And right now BP is down 15% in Europe markets and the Euro is tanking. Maybe this is why he's fiddling, so that Europe burns?

The above hissed in response by: Baggi at June 1, 2010 12:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

Given his background and that of his staff, the most plausible cause is that he is in over his head. His narcissism prevents him from realizing this. Then add in that he is lazy, doesn't like Oil companies in particular, doesn't like the British, etc.

Nationalization of healthcare, banking, car companies, journalism, yeah these are planned. Response to the blowout, the attempted Times Square bombing, etc, is just incompetence.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD at June 2, 2010 11:36 AM