NIMBY For Me, But Not For Thee*

The Washington Post has an interesting editorial today about President Obama's curious oil drilling policies -- it's OK to drill, baby, drill, offshore just so long as it's not along U.S. coastlines. As the editorial notes [PDF]:

WHEN WAS the last time an American president stood before an audience in a foreign country and announced that he looked forward to importing more of its oil? Answer: Just over a week ago, when President Obama joined political and business leaders in Brasilia in hailing the fact that their newly discovered offshore petroleum reserves might be twice as large as those in the United States. Americans “want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Mr. Obama said....

As for offshore drilling, Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for punching holes in the ocean floor off Brazil is hard to reconcile with his decision, announced Dec. 1, to keep the waters off the East and West coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off-limits to exploration indefinitely....

...it is tough to reconcile with U.S. eagerness to “help” Brazil pump oil off its coasts and ship it here. U.S. companies, enticed by government loan guarantees, are already lined up to sell Brazil drilling equipment and services. Forget the implications for U.S. dependency on foreign sources. What does this posture say about American regard for the natural environment outside U.S. territory?

The editorial also tabbed this contradictory Obama policy -- it's OK to import oil from Brazil, but not ethanol.

*Of course, that's what NIMBY means.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Oil Girl?

  • ||

    Meh, I've seen lobster girl.

  • ||

    Ya, she is better. I like oil-free side boob better, like me girl :) Can't complain about this one too much though.

  • Pip||

    So you wouldn't oil up Lobster Girl's side boob with baby oil? What the hell is wrong with you?

  • ||

    Lobster Girl is also Silicone Girl. Forget her.

    Hail, Oil Girl!

  • ||

    I think the body (the head is obviously Palin's) is Bo Derek from when she was in that Tarzan movie.

  • rather ||

    couldn't resist this image

    because you're a pig. Reason writers take every opportunity to sexualize women, and not take them seriously is the MO of Reason.

    I wonder what the retention rate is for the few female writers?

  • ||

    You're blog sucks. And you're a worthless piece of shit. Why do you waist your time on here? You pathetic loser.

  • ||

    Overfed troll. I'm starting to doubt the feed it until it bursts method of troll control. I think starvation is more effective. Research continues.

  • ||

    Your probably right on this one. I've been on here a while and never had the chance to take my shots at her. I just can't imagine how pathetic you have to be to have a blog revolving around anonymous commenter's on an awesome Libertarian blog you don't even agree with. Seriously. Get a life. Good day reason, I'm off to school.

    Rather, you're blog sucks, go away. I had to say it one last time.

  • Fucking homophones||

    How do they work?

  • Banana phone||

    ring ring ring!

  • Robin||

    Similar to the Batphone

  • Jason||

    At least the consistent misuse of both your and you're by AA is amusing.

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    I found it endearing.

  • rather ||

    traitor

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    I know. I am an embarrassment to my major (English). And I am also easily amused ;)

  • ||

    It was early in the morning here in AZ, I get easily confused at that point :( That doesn't diminish rectals douchyness. Thank you for your concern. You're the best!

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    "Discrete/discreet" has always been my poison. I have to look it up every time.

  • rather ||

    Why do you waist your time on here?

    because I am easily amused

  • ||

    I'm sure you're not as amused as I am. You worthless editor.

  • rather ||

    Justin, you are an idiot

  • Pip||

    If rather had a brain, she'd take it out and play with it.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Or, she'd take it out and sign away the rights to it's image in exchange for reasonable payment where it will be promptly circulated by stock photo outlets and end up at the top of another Reason article. Even then, she'd probably bitch about how her brain has victimized by "corporate America."

  • rather ||

    Or, she'd take it out and sign away the rights to it's image in exchange for reasonable payment where it will be promptly circulated by stock photo outlets and end up at the top of another Reason article. Even then, she'd probably bitch about how her brain has victimized by "corporate America."

    Models sign a blanket release and are aware they are giving up their rights to an image. Photoshopping women in politics to degrade is sexist, and in specie inappropriate for a political freedom magazine

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    Photoshopping women in politics to[sic] degrade is sexist, and in specie inappropriate for a political freedom magazine


    I guess you tried to say "'Photoshopping' women for political reasons is sexist."

    Anyway, what is exactly your argument for saying that it is inappropriate for a political freedom magazine to show some smut?

  • rather ||

    WTF

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rather,

    Why is it inappropriate for a magazine that espouss a pro-freedom ideology to show some smut? I don't understand your logic.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    I read this as "It's okay to post paid models up there, but unpaid people is sexist." So really, rather is arguing property rights...on a libertarian blog...

  • ChicagoSucks||

    She's not "in politics," she's a celebrity...you know, like the model in the original photo.

  • rather ||

    Now I know why Chicago sucks

  • Nipplemancer||

    Chicago sucks because of it's pizza, you suck because you're a useless and pathetic cuntpickle of a blogwhore.

  • X||

    buy cat food futures

  • rather ||

    buy cat food futures

    Really? I told my broker to buy autism-spectrum focused drug companies

  • ||

    You're so fucking dumb. It's amazing. Can you get any stupider?

  • rather ||

    Epi, just the fuck up you stupid piece of shit waste of my time

    Regards, Rather
    ...your mother
    ...all the women in the world
    ...any future intelligent life forms

  • ChicagoSucks||

    No please rather, explain yourself. I would sincerely like to understand why images of unpaid celebrities is sexist, but paid models is not.

  • rather ||

  • ||

    Which means you're no smarter or witty than the rest of the window-licker's.

  • .||

    Reason writers take every opportunity to sexualize women,

    Only the ones who are sexy.

  • ||

    If it were not for hormones and procreation could be done without the other sex, then men and women could not live together. The relationship would probably have ended the same way the neanderthals/homo sapiens did.

  • ||

    I agree with Rather on this one. But it is not that they sexualize all women. They sexualize women they don't like. I would like to see them run a picture like that with Howley or Mangu Ward's face. No way would they ever do that.

  • ||

    And good for Rather for being a liberal willing to call bullshit even though she probably hates Palin.

  • rather ||

    John, I wrote on this topic; I admire Palin, and all woman who are in politics. I have said it before, I will vote for any woman, over any man, regardless of their political affiliation.

    There is a difference between an model who consents to sell her picture, and a person's image that is stolen.

    Reason editors condone theft when they use that photoshop, and it hurts Palin's image. What is the difference between Reason and the liberal press?

  • sarcasmic||

    "I will vote for any woman, over any man, regardless of their political affiliation."

    Holy shit that's dumb. But then again you are a liberal. I repeat myself.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    I will vote for any woman, over any man, regardless of their political affiliation.


    "Some men are Baptists, some are Catholics; the old man was an Oldsmobile man."

    There is a difference between an model who consents to sell her picture, and a person's image that is stolen.


    You CAN'T steal an image, you moron. You can only steal property.

    Reason editors condone theft when they use that photoshop, and it hurts Palin's image.


    You can't steal images as these can spawn in people's minds ad infinitum, making them non-rivalrous (thus, NOT property); plus images cannot be hurt, only people.

    What is the difference between Reason and the liberal press?


    Uh... Reason? Logic? Honesty? Rationality? Reason does not condone intellectual fraud whereas the mainstream liberal media does?

  • rather ||

    Good my dear, so you consent that pictures stolen of your wife, or child are not their property?

    What about their names and addresses? The location of your child's school?

    People have a right to privacy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    Good my dear, so you consent that pictures stolen of your wife, or child are not their property?


    I don't think you get it - you CAN'T STEAL AN IMAGE! I can't be angry at someone for "stealing" something that cannot be mine.

    What about their names and addresses? The location of your child's school?


    What about them?

    People have a right to privacy.


    Bullshit. If people had a right to "privacy" we would all be isolated hermits BY DEFAULT. You simply do not understand the concept of "rights." You think rights are entitlements, a burden laid on others to PROVIDE (i.e. positive "rights"), instead of a responsibility NOT to infringe (i.e. negative rights.)

    I cannot enter someone's home without invitation as that is infringement, but I can certainly photograph bikini-clad women in the beach, as their "image" is not their property - the "image" is actually created in the brain of the observer, which means: it can't be theirs!

  • rather ||

    I'll keep that in mind when you bitch after some boy breaks into your teenage daughter's computer and steal her 'I'm stupid and sixteen shots"

    Maybe she'll be on Reason!

  • Rather Retarded||

    Am I willfully ignorant or just blindingly stupid?

  • a-hole||

    Actually, (small case rather/rectal) dearie dreary you are both.

  • rather ||

    and you are the worst bore-go play with your feces.

  • Mike M.||

    "I will vote for any woman, over any man, regardless of their political affiliation."

    I'm not at all sure that I believe you're telling the truth here, but if you are, then that's rather sad.

    How would you feel if I said that I would always vote for any man over any woman, regardless of political affiliation? Seriously, think about it.

  • rather ||

    Seriously, think about it
    Seriously, I have:
    WHORE HERE, WHORE THERE, WHORES EVERYWHERE

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "I will vote for any woman, over any man, regardless of their political affiliation."

    Wait, weren't you calling Reason sexist before?

  • rather ||

    Affirmative action biatch! ;-)

  • Rather Retarded||

    Woohoo I'm a hypocrite!

  • ||

    Reason editors condone theft when they use that photoshop, and it hurts Palin's image. What is the difference between Reason and the liberal press?

    If the Images are not public domain or Reason did not pay for them then contact the owners and get Reason sued.

    Otherwise shut the fuck up.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    Reason writers take every opportunity to sexualize women


    Because *wink* *wink* women don't like to be sexualized...

    ... whatever the FUCK that means.

  • rather ||

    This has zilch to do with sex. Palin is not a model but a politician.
    I don't care if lobster girl is the feature pic on every post. I hope she's making money but Palin is trying to establish herself as a possible POTUS and Reason keeps on asking her about her tits.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    This has zilch to do with sex. Palin is not a model but a politician.


    Which is irrelevant.

    [...] Palin is trying to establish herself as a possible POTUS and Reason keeps on asking her about her tits.


    Asking her? As in "personally"?

  • rather ||

    When the idiot above stated She's not "in politics," she's a celebrity...you know, like the model in the original photo., he really was expressing his decision to pigeonhole Sarah Palin. It had zilch to do with sex but only control.

  • rather ||

    En masse, It is a statement of power and control over women when they are sexualized in a non-consensual relationships.

  • Pip||

    Camille Paglia thinks you're a moronic cunt.

  • Rather Retarded||

    Oops I finally laid out all my cards on the table and they turned out to be incredibly stale, inane feminist tropes.

  • u just got rathered||

    LICK MY DIRTY CLIT LIKE A HOBO! LICK MY CLIT! LICK MY CLIT!

  • D-oh||

    ... so you're saying women are quite easily over-powered, offended, and controlled by such things as statements and Photoshopped pictures...ahh

    I think I'm starting to get it now. Forgive me for being so slow. It's been hard for me, 'cause my experience of women, via the ones I know, regularly choose to live their own lives rather than be techy, delicate, victims easily offended by (dare I say it) Statements and pictures!

    Strong, energetic, with a sense of humor, that's how I thought most women were.

    But I could be wrong. I guess rather than be independent and self-confident, women "en masse" would rather be whiny victims like... well, like rather.

  • rather ||

    The BS women in politics have to put up with concerning their clothing, their hair, their kids, their choices, their tits is fucking ridiculous.

    Those women you find so confident are smiling because they are imagining kicking you in the nuts.

    Do you know why I know they would? Because I am smiling right now doing the same thing. BTW, I will start with your left nut.

  • D-oh||

    First of all they don't "have to put up" with BS or anything else. They do it because they've made a career choice, and they get something they want by doing it. Ain't "choice" a big important word in the feminist world? You know, like in "a woman's choice."

    Secondly, any woman can imagine and fantisize anything they like about me, even you. It's called freedom of thought. I'm all for it. In fact I encourage you try it more often.

    You say you'll start with my left nut... interesting, in your fantasy you must be imagining you have small feet, unlike what I and other commenters here imagine the rest of you looks like.

    I suspect that's

  • D-oh||

    ... to continue...
    Actually there's nothing more. I'm not going to speculate further at this point.. I reserve speculation for a future post.

  • ||

    Palin is not a model but a politician.

    For the Miss Alaska Beauty pageant in 85' she did win 3rd place.

    Simply because she isn't the absolute best model does not mean she is not a model.

  • rather ||

    clutching at straws. I heard you fucked a girl once; does that make you a male escort?

  • ||

    I heard you fucked a girl once; does that make you a male escort?

    If you are not horribly ugly and if you are in fact a women: for you I will only charge $400 an hour plus travel and expenses.

  • ass-hole||

    I heard you have a blog, does that make you wet?

  • ||

    I wonder what the retention rate is for the few female writers?

    Wasn't it only a month ago when you were bragging how much traffic you got by your constant linking to Reason.com?

  • rather ||

    Joshua, you may have noticed I can run fuck with the big boys ;-)

  • ||

    Did Obama at least take a look at prevailing currents? I guess Brazil is far enough south of the gulf stream to be clear. But international NIMBYism? Yeah I guess so.

    With Germany's newly charged up super anti-nuclear stance I wonder how they will react to new nuclear projects to their east and west. Certainly in the path of the radiation cloud from a catastrophe. I digest.

  • ||

    Wow, thats kinda crazy when you think about it. Wow.

    www.privacy-online.it.tc

  • ||

    Bad photoshop is bad.

    Can we see that pic with the real woman's head on it? I mean, Bristol would have been much more acceptable than Sarah Palin.

  • ||

    Eww, I thought she was just ugly.

  • ||

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    Why am I afraid to click on that, SF?

  • ||

    Because you have been paying attention.

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    And yet I will eventually look.

  • ||

    The ambiguity of repulsion is the only thing holding my marriage together at this point.

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    Waaait a minute. . . that was not at all unpleasant. It was the actual original and not some memory-searing abomination. Curse you and your head games, SF!

  • ||

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

    [disappears in puff of diabetic smoke]

  • Restoras||

    I see what you did there...

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I can't curse him after setting my eyes upon that picture.

  • ||

    I guess it isn't Bo Derek.

    I am disappointed.

  • mr simple||

    Terrible photoshop; kind of scary.

  • bilbo||

    the photoshop has to be bad or progressives might think its real....

  • ||

    It seems to me that a "hero" of your party, the fat fraud named Teddy R., was all to happy to impose his own brand of environmental marxism, including the establishment of the national parks.

    Otherwise, your post is liberty friendly.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Teddy R was a PROGRESSIVE Republican and a traitor to the GOP (except when it comes to the Second Amendment).

    Either way, I'm shocked you consider my post liberty friendly, specially since there are so many nature worshipers that visit this blog.

    Thanks for giving me credit.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gregory Smith,

    We should be drilling and mining here, and that includes so-called "national parks."


    Greg, just so I can know where you really stand, do you favor that companies drill for oil on whatever property they duly purchased, or are you in favor of drilling for oil in the U.S. as a way to achieve energy autarky (i.e. so-called "self-sufficiency"?)

    Because if you favor the first by arguing for property rights, in general, then you may not be a redneck!

  • ||

    then you may not be a redneck!

    It has been my experience that rednecks are very much into property rights and often very well versed on the subject.

  • Gregory Smith||

    I'm not a redneck, although to me that word is not an insult since rednecks can kill a deer, skin it, change an engine, and do all kinds of things city boys can't do. Thus, they are SURVIVORS.

    But besides that, I support property rights and I support greater accept for mining and drilling in national parks. It's a shame that we can't even drill in less than 1% of ANWR because the liberals worry about the Caribou (who by the way, love the pipelines).

  • Texans||

    We'd like to drill for oil in Teddy Roosevelt's head

  • George Soros's Whore||

    Obama Strengthens George Soros’ Oil Interests In Brazil

    http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/20.....in-brazil/

  • Gregory Smith||

    Glenn Beck reported on this months ago. Yet does Reason ever give Beck any credit? Nope.

  • ||

    Yes, I was in Venice, Florida, cruising along route 41, slurping down a protein smoothie, when I heard this from Beck on his radio show.

    Why are you surprised I wrote that your 11:01 post was liberty friendly? When you don't fawn all over the GOP and cops, you ain't bad.

  • Pip||

    "protein smoothie"

    Is that what the Marys are calling it these days?

  • ||

    Yeah the problems Gregory has with reason are same problems conservatives have with libertarians.

    I don't see why he needs to have a hissy fit about it every time he writes here.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Well thanks. And to the guy who says I have a hissy fit, I assure you that my reaction is nothing like the reaction of my antagonists and attackers.

  • Tim||

    I applaud Obama's policy. Let's use up everybody else's oil first.

  • ||

    That's been our policy for decades.

  • DNS||

    That's been our policy for decades.

    Which actually is a rational (pardon the pun) policy. Think back to J.P. Getty, he figured out early on the cheapest and most efficient way to store oil was by keeping in the ground, as opposed to exploiting and storing it somewhere else, while other oil companies, such as Standard Oil, drilled and stored. Though Rockefeller had more land leases, he made up for his inefficiency through sheer volume, while Getty remained competitive through greater efficiency. Not surprising, given his legendary personal frugality. Government is trying to employ a similar policy, but without the aspect of increasing domestic supply through artificial suppression of the domestic market.

  • ||

    It's not an irrational policy, but it is insanely hypocritical if you're also advocating a move away from fossil fuels due to AGW concerns and oppose drilling for other environmental concerns.

    The world will end if we keep using oil, but please, drill for more oil! Faster--the industrial world hungers for your oil. See?

  • Tim||

    But not your ethanol. We've got this farm lobby thing...

  • DNS||

    The world will end if we keep using oil, but please, drill for more oil! Faster--the industrial world hungers for your oil. See?

    But, as long as it's the right people drilling for more oil, its copasetic. When it's us, evil! Which makes little sense, because all that oil exploration, in addition to nat gas, tar sand, and shale exploitation would produce jobs in the private sector, something this economy desperately needs. It would, at the very least, help lower prices in speculation with the positive psychology that pro industry policies are being employed, even if the payoff would take a few years to materialize. As we know, it's not about the environment. It's about the monopoly of control via central planning, with the bonus of an international and politically correct fig leaf.

  • ||

    Which actually is a rational (pardon the pun) policy.

    Leaving aside, of course, that this policy results in

    (1) exporting jobs in the oil biz;

    (2) drilling for oil under lower environmental standards overseas (I know, bug or feature?)

    (3) the export of wealth to buy foreign oil

    (4) the support of any number of noxious regimes overseas

    (5) increased price for oil as the supply is artificially depressed.

    But other than that, totally rational.

  • DNS||

    But other than that, totally rational.

    I never said the policy was pro business or pro domestic market. I made the observation that the policy was rational. Now, if the ulterior motive was to have a rational policy result in the consequences you describe... I believe there is an Iron Law for this?

  • ||

    Oh, you meant rational, not beneficial. Got it.

  • Brett L||

    Glad other people have seen this also.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Let's use up everybody else's oil first."

    Exactly, I don't see why people don't get this.

  • ||

    Not NIMBY - they are BANANA's

    Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

  • Old Mexican||

    Love it! LOVE IT! Can I get the rights to it???

  • DNS||

    Not NIMBY - they are BANANA's

    Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

    That is, simply brilliant. I suggest you get printing bumperstickers, pronto.

  • rather ||

    I prefer If Libertarian Bullshit was Currency... Bumper Sticker

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    I prefer If Libertarian Bullshit was Currency... Bumper Sticker


    Wouldn't it be too scarce to be currency?

    Instead, with a Liberal Bullshit currency, you would have a hyperinflation problem... and a famine.

  • rather ||

    I wade in Libertarian bullshit. I'm sure there is an Iron Law for it too...or maybe it is a natural law

  • Rather Retarded||

    Oops my mistake, that's not libertarian bullshit, that's my own shit. I guess that's what happens when I'm too fucking fat to get up and go to the bathroom.

  • Barack Obama||

    Let me be clear.

    I will also explain this policy tonight.

  • Gus||

    "NIMBY"

    Not In My Butt, Yo!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    To me, what's funniest is Rather assuming that any guys were looking at the model's face. I didn't even notice it was bad photoshop of Palin for the first few seconds.

    But then again, that's just because I'm a male sexist pig. Or perhaps it's because a couple million years of evolution has determined that it is advantageous for the continuation of the species for the male of the species to be sexually attracted to the female of the species. IOW, it's natural for men to enjoy looking at pictures of pretty women, particularly nekkid ones.

    So lighten the fuck up. Sheesh.

  • ||

    If I'm the GOP, I play that clip form Brazil every minute on the minute during the campaign.

  • Warty||

  • Warty||

    Just what the fuck is going on in here? I leave to do some real work and rectal and Grego are allowed to completely shit the place all to fuck.

  • ||

    I wonder if we can nudge them into a war with each other like putting two different types of bugs in the same salad bowl.

    Sure they would circle vainly about the inside of it trying to climb out but eventually they would crash into each other and engage in mortal combat for our entertainment.

  • D-oh||

    Mortal combat ... or ... sex?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Same difference.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement