Tuesday, December 13, 2016

A weak cheer for Rex Tillerson

Apotheosis of Tillerson, by Rockwell
Even a blind sow finds an acorn once in a while. Trump's appointments to date can be summarized as an assembly of imbeciles, some with nazi tendencies. Rex Tillerson as secretary of state qualifies as an imbecile if, as reported by Steve Coll, his favorite book is "Atlas Shrugged."

And he is also a NIMBY jackass  very much in the style of the next president.

And there may be many other objectionable things about him. Coll will be happy to tell anyone about them.

But his go-it-Exxon's-way style at least occasionally hits the correct note. Coll says:

 In Kurdistan, during the Obama Administration, Tillerson defied State Department policy and cut an independent oil deal with the Kurdish Regional Government, undermining the national Iraqi government in Baghdad. ExxonMobil did not ask permission. After the fact, Tillerson arranged a conference call with State Department officials and explained his actions, according to my sources, by saying, “I had to do what was best for my shareholders.”

It is RtO's firm opinion that a free and independent Great Kurdistan is not only consistent with what used to be American values but an indispensable component of any settlement that could conceivably bring calm to southwest Asia.

OTOH, clearly Exxon didn't do it out of any high-minded principles or even from a sophisticated conception of the politics in that part of the world, since it also does business in Equatorial Guinea, one of the worst hellholes in the world.

(Equatorial Guinea is the richest country per capita in Africa thinks to oil royalties but here is some of what Wikipedia has to say about it: "The UN says that less than half of the population has access to clean drinking water and that 20% of children die before reaching the age of five. The country's authoritarian government has one of the worst human rights records in the world, consistently ranking among the "worst of the worst" in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights."

(It might be nice if, during Tillerson's confirmation hearings, some senator asks him about that. For that matter, it might have been nice if Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had been asked about policy there, too.)

Tillerson and I also agree that everyone should have electricity. Something like 2 billion people don't and they die because of it. I have never written about this, but RtO's position on climate change is:

If you are going to propose ANY policy with regard to climate or pollution, the first words I want to hear are how you intend to bring electricity to ALL the people. Unless I hear that, I will not listen to anything else you have to say.
At the Council on Foreign Relations, Tillerson said:

 "There are still hundreds of millions, billions of people living in abject poverty around the world. They need electricity. They need electricity they can count on, that they can afford. They need fuel to cook their food on that's not animal dung. There are more people's health being dramatically affected because they could -- they don't even have access to fossil fuels to burn. They'd love to burn fossil fuels because their quality of life would rise immeasurably, and their quality of health and the health of their children and their future would rise immeasurably. You'd save millions upon millions of lives by making fossil fuels more available to a lot of the part of the world that doesn't have it"
 Close enough.






21 comments:

  1. Trump's appointments to date can be summarized as an assembly of imbeciles, some with nazi tendencies.

    Wow, this is almost a record: second sentence of the post, and already Godwin's Law. Do you have any evidence for that nazi tendencies thing, or is that just you spewing more progressive hate?

    (I can take it as read that you consider anyone who thinks the world has changed since the New Deal is an imbecile. An odd inversion of reality, but that's RtO for you.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pro-tip, Harry. "Bannon" does not constitute evidence.

    So far, you are doing what progs do best: spew hate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since when have you, who several times repeated the 'widespread voter fraud' alarm, cared about evidence?

    However, Bannon definitely fulfills the nazi tendencies part; and while they are not nominees, the sons, who have influence, do as well; and if you wish to challenge me on the imbeciles, I invite you to discuss Flynn. Knock yourself out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since when have you, who several times repeated the 'widespread voter fraud' alarm, cared about evidence?

    Provide even one time. Just one.

    However, Bannon definitely fulfills the nazi tendencies part ...

    Prove it. You have lied so often, and been punked so often, that your credibility has long since left the planet.

    (I can't help but notice that an assertion without evidence, followed up by another assertion without evidence, is merely repeating the original crime.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Skipper, you are very close to making yourself unwelcome here. Normally I wouldn't even consider such a thing, but you know very well what you have said about voting fraud at Great Guys, while readers of RtO do not. If you attempt to mislead my readers I will be seriously offended.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ... but you know very well what you have said about voting fraud at Great Guys...

    No, I don't. And you don't either. How do I know that? Because you spent far more time accusing me of something than it would have taken to find that thing in the first place.

    Unless, of course, that thing does not exist. Which means you have seriously offended yourself by misleading your readers. Again.

    However, Bannon definitely fulfills the nazi tendencies part ...


    Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ... but you know very well what you have said about voting fraud at Great Guys...

    Once again, you have proven yourself either delusional, or a liar.

    As I have asked many times before, please do not ever tell me very well what I know I said, but rather, provide the direct quote.

    Doing so would keep you from continually adding to your bulging Big Bag o' Harry's Bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yawn. I can understand why you would want to pretend now that you weren't peddling the rightwing nonsense about false-ID voting since it has been proved to be nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Hey Skipper:] As I have asked many times before, please do not ever tell me very well what I know I said, but rather, provide the direct quote.


    The reason you don't is you can't. You know that, which, once again, makes you a lying vista.

    BTW, how many non-citizens voted in California?

    ReplyDelete
  10. None. In any case, not the millions your boy alleges.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, you lied about Bannon, and you lied about what I have said regarding voter ID, and you did it by completely avoiding common internet courtesy.

    Classy blog you run here.

    None. In any case, not the millions your boy alleges.

    So, not none. In fact, you have no earthly idea how many non-citizens voted.

    And if you think you do, you are lying. Again.

    You really should seek professional help with that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The national total, as of the last report I saw, was 4 -- count 'em, four -- all rightwingers, and none in California.

    And you just confirmed what I said you had done.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And you just confirmed what I said you had done.

    Pro-tip, you lying vista: I said nothing about voter ID. I defended nothing. If you think that my accusation that you are clueless about the number of non-citizens that voted in California somehow amounts to an undefined and non-existent something I didn't say about voter ID in the past, that means you are liar and stupid.

    What I did say, and I'm going to type this very slowly because you are a journalist, is that you have no earthly idea how many non-citizens voted in California.

    Of course, I could be completely wrong. It might be that you know how CA voter registration works, and how citizenship is verified, and that, therefore, you can tell me how many non-citizens voted.

    You can't. No one can.

    If you are typical of journalists, no wonder newspapers are sinking like greased safes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yet you have for long been an alarmist about this threat that, according to you, cannot be detected. I am pretty sure that your co-alarmists would have been on the alert in the past election; it is not true tast false ID voting cannot be detected -- it was detected several times among rightwingers.

    The reason it isn't detected among brown people is that it doesn't happen; or seldom enough to be at best a distraction.

    In re my claim of a club of imbeciles, while this link is not to any appointee, merely to a most prominent supporter, it does confirm the imbecility quotient in the neighborhood is on the rise:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/falwell-tillerson-trump-liberty-232965

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yet you have for long been an alarmist about this threat that, according to you, cannot be detected.

    How often do I have to ask you to directly quote what I say? FFS, are you such a techno-podesta that you can't figure out how to link, and copy & paste?

    Of course, that which is very easy in theory is impossible if, in reality, the thing doesn't exist in the first place. Which is why you don't do it. So, on more lie for your bulging bag of bollocks.

    BTW, stop prevaricating. To repeat:

    What I did say, and I'm going to type this very slowly because you are a journalist, is that you have no earthly idea how many non-citizens voted in California.

    Do you know what the voter registration procedures are in California?

    Do some of that googling. Find our for yourself. Then explain to me exactly how one would go about detecting non-citizens voting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Still an alarmist, I see. Why do you keep denying it?

    Nobody is fooled, except you

    ReplyDelete
  17. Still an alarmist, I see. Why do you keep denying it?

    How often do I have to ask you to quote me directly? It is a courtesy I unfailingly extend to you, and other readers, so that they can to what, exactly, I am responding.

    Had you done so, you could have shown what I said that was alarmist. Except that you can't, because I haven't said anything that would even remotely qualify.

    After all, it isn't alarmist, but rather restating the obvious, that you spouted a definite conclusion -- None. In any case, not the millions your boy alleges.
    -- from a bottomless well of ignorance.

    Rather than making that noise that shows you have stopped all thought -- typing "alarmist" in this case -- you could show how California's voter registration procedures rigorously exclude non-residents, and how its voting procedures make it possible to determine precisely how many non-citizens voted.

    But you didn't, because you resorted to your laughably stupid name calling. Whether that is due to your continuing resistance to alleviating your ignorance, or diverting attention from very inconvenient facts is a tough call.

    However, it is very much part and parcel of progs these days: name calling in place of actual thought.

    Keep it up -- after all, it is working brilliantly for you so far.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, I can't help but notice that, despite many opportunities, you have still failed to provide any evidence for that nazi tendencies thing. No doubt for the reason so rampant here at Ranting the Odious: there isn't any.

    You are disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I already provided plenty of evidence. As usual when presented with evidence that challenges your prejudices you pretend you haven't seen it

    ReplyDelete
  20. I already provided plenty of evidence.

    Bullshit. If you had, it would be a simple task to provide links to where you had done so. Since you didn't, and never do, then I am safe concluding it doesn't exist.

    Of course, it would be a simple matter to prove me wrong.

    Waiting ...

    ReplyDelete