Skip to main content

Politics, change, and the Deepwater Horizon

The story is that we need BP, as they are the only party with the closest thing to the know-how to handle this spill and which has the responsibility to do so.  I'm not sure I buy that.  They were knowingly irresponsible in the construction of their well; they seem to be pulling the wool over our eyes on the amount of oil that has escaped their well; and they apparently either do not have the will or the ability to handle this by themselves in a timely manner.  It has been five weeks.  We've seen oil washing up on our shores now.  If things continue at this rate, we can expect our present problems to increase, and to see oily hurricanes, once tropical storm season hits.

More clearly needs to be done.  Current public and governmental pressure is not enough.  Nor are the actions being taken by BP or the various local and federal agencies at work.  People can feel this.  Recently, there have been comments from both 'the right' and 'the left' that this crisis is Obama's political doom, his Katrina.   At present, that seems entirely possible, though we haven't gotten there yet.

The bigger, much more direct political loser here is obviously BP, and the rest of the oil companies, by extension.  Attention is now being paid to the cozy, accommodating relationships between regulators and 'big oil'.  Questions of the safety of off-shore drilling carry far more weight than a couple months ago, when Obama partially lifted the moratorium on new drill sites.  More pointed campaigns are being made regarding the need for cleaner, renewable energy sources.  The President has a chance to harness these movements, to turn this crisis (if it must be compared to a Bush-era disaster) from his Katrina-to-be into an environmental 9/11.

Obama ought to drop a rhetorical hammer on BP and its compatriots, and then quickly pivot to the answer: a crusade for better sources of fuel, a new and greener infrastructure, and a reinvigorated industrial sector focused on these needs, creating a healthier, safer, more secure nation, and a new economy.  This is the sort of vision, the kind of leadership Americans desperately crave in times of despair.  We want hope for a better tomorrow.

It shouldn't be a hard sell.  Recent wars, economic and environmental crises, global competition, and (less directly) that amorphous anger we keep hearing about on the news all the make the case for change.  Change that Obama has already called for in both concrete and general terms.  This is the change that we can believe in.  It's also the change Obama needs in order to distance himself from the incompetent early handling of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Bush was able to jump away from responsibility for allowing the terror attacks of 9/11, mostly by refocusing our anger, dismay, and desire for action.  Obama could learn from that, and actually accomplish something useful at the same time.  So why isn't he?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars.  Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public.  There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays.  Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature.  They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study.  Most importantly, they are read. In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these.  But what of the wordless comic or silent play?  Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature?  These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer...
12 comments
Read more

Every thief must go.

Robin , chapter 5  Previous Chapter Robin kept herself busy through her unemployment doing chores and practising martial arts, but mostly she spent time playing in the woods.  The bears avoided her, and she kept out of the thieves' way, as much as she could.  This was no easy task, for Sherman's Forest had its share of scoundrels. Chief of these was Lance Bucskin, infamous for scamming old ladies and still more renowned for his hatred of puppies, which he would kick whenever the chance arose.  Even his own men found his proclivities distasteful, but he had a way with weapons and highway robbery which held his fellows in awe. LANCE-- [clad in all green with a pointed cap; has a devil may care attitude; close cropped blond hair with a well waxed van dyke beard; 28 and in peak condition, he loves exhibiting his physical prowess as much as he enjoys booting little dogs; he is holding up a family as his rapt minions stand by] They're really not all that hard to im...
6 comments
Read more

Reading requires effort, but so does lying about it.

It's in the very first sentence. Right wingers, Republicans, and libertarians who flog the Constitution of the United Sates of America to push their ideology of 'limited government' (except in matters of defence) have forgotten their sacred document's preamble.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  According to the Constitution, a founding purpose of the government it forms (and continues to inform) was to "promote the general Welfare".  Now, one may argue as to what policies do just that, but one cannot claim the Constitution makes no provision for it without either lying or being grossly ignorant of the writings in question.  Though it is against my...
7 comments
Read more