A few weeks ago, as oil kept gushing from the Gulf Coast waters, Obama let us know that he talks to the experts so he "knows whose ass to kick" for the disaster that is the BP oil spill.
The media in the US and cable news talking heads mouthed off not on the gazillion gallons of oil that is still oozing from deep inside the ocean, but on how controversial Obama's "ass-kicking" statement was. The focus of the national discussion was not finding a way to stop the spillage immediately, but on the whole "angry black-man" image Obama must be careful to maneuver around because Barack just can't afford to be seen losing his cool with his skin color.
Fast-forward to this week and the main question I have, especially after his Oval Office speech, is not about Obama behaving like an "angry black man", but becoming an old, white man! An old, white man with gray hair and big, floppy ears, one which we all knew as President for the last eight years. The question on my mind was: "When did Obama become George W. Bush?"
Not only did Obama respond to the anxiety of a nation with what else but a speech, it was not even a good one. In fact, while during his candidate days Obama's oratory skills could have you on your feet about whatever Obama told you to get on your feet about, the dryness of his speech on the BP oil spill almost put me to sleep. Until that is, I heard my TV utter these words from the President:
...Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al-Qaida, and tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.
Is it just me or is something about this quote so Bush-era? Are we talking about the oil spill in the Gulf Coast or the war Afghanistan?
There was something about this analogy that just sounded so wrong and out of context. BP is responsible for the drilling that caused this oil spill, so why are we talking about this as though we have been attacked? Why are we comparing it with war?
Obama's statement suggested that the oil had attacked us. The oil was the terrorist. Obama was vilifying Mother Nature and making it sound as though we were the victims.
But really it was the other way around. I could not articulate all the things that were so wrong with this statement until I read this piece in the Huffington Post by veteran journalist, Robert Scheer. It lays outs how what we have placed upon nature's ecological balance with this oil spill is nothing short of an assault on nature:
The oil was minding its own business until some multinational corporations, enabled by a dysfunctional government regulatory regime, decided to wage war on the ecological balance of the oceans by employing technology that they were not prepared to control. Cleaning up the oil spill mess we made by raping the environment to satiate our consumer gluttony is not a glorious battle against evil but rather obligatory penance for the profound error of our ways.
Scheer asks how we can even attempt to place the blame on nature by asking: "You wound Mother Nature by punching a hole deep in her pristine ocean where you have no business going and when she bleeds uncontrollably you dare blame her for the assault?"
Scheer goes onto to point out that all this is coming from a President who just before this disaster happened, had given oil companies the go ahead "to pillage in the deep seas at will."
Off-shore drilling and Obama? See, I told you Barack was turning into George W.!
But enough of bashing the President and his speeches. The important thing is that during the worst natural disaster to ever hit the US, what people really craved from Obama's speech were solutions and leadership to get us to those solutions. Big hype over some fancy speech from some fancy room in the White House is just not going to be enough. We need concrete, real action steps we can take now because the oil is still gushing into our oceans. It hasn't stopped and we don't really know how to make it stop. And Obama sitting at his desk in the Oval Office failed to offer any ideas.
The good news however is that Rachel Maddow did! And she let us know exactly we can solve this crisis. As cable tv pundits had a field day panning and bashing Obama's speech, Maddow went in a different direction and offered her take on the speech she wishes Obama had delivered.
It really is worth taking the ten minutes to watch Maddow deliver her compelling and passionate speech which almost makes up for Obama's lack of fervor.
Someone should make sure the President and his advisers are listening to Rachel Maddow, and taking note. Because frankly Mr. President, the time has come to go beyond "kicking some ass".
Follow Anushay Hossain on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AnushaysPoint
I feel a bit sorry for Tony Hayward as he inherited the problems of the great Lord Browne - of the Texas refinery disaster. But Brown had the ear of Bush, Blair and Putin and was untouchable until his personal life intervened.
We had better hope that the oil industry finds a collective solution because if they do not the US President and his cohorts will not be able to stop the gush either.
As an outsider and great admirer of the USA a lot of the anti BP stuff seems to do with US upcoming elections. And Obama's future - a Truman or a Carter ? When the euro liberal left fell in love with Obama I smelt trouble from this side. The liberal left here loathe the USA - the fact that you saved us in three world wars - 1,2 and the Cold War - seems to count for little. Sadly I think that Obama is a Carter, which is a disaster for western civilisation.
A pity too that Wall street has not been hammered financially like BP !
For example, what the hell are Anne Thompson's environmental science qualifications for being NBC's 'chief envrionmental correspondent'?
I don't mean to be harsh just on Anne. because all the TV media people are generally just incompetent 'talking heads', but these high flying titles and no real understanding of the existential impact of financial, environmental, political, or war experience is starting to annoy this viewer, and perhaps others who recognize that the MSM is not doing squat to report or provide any hint of value-added analysis of the global corporate/financial/militarists deadly impacts in any of these areas that very certainly spell disaster for all average people.
Bottom-line; the audience is less willing to accept or eat the normal 'dog food' when it has become so clear that our world is going to hell, and the MSM doesn't even have anything intelligent to say.
Just an idea, but how about getting some people who can add some value and actually address the areas they are supposed to be reporting on?
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
See: Life Threatening Danger at http://www.aesopinstitute.org updated today.
Also, What to Do! on the same website.
Chris Landau, a geologist, believes the solution may be to drill 8 or more new, vertical wells, in a circle around the gusher, on the assumption that far more oil will be produced than can otherwise be controlled.
He states the oil might continue to be produced in huge quantities.
He believes several new wells can allow recovery of the oil, which may need to continue for a very, very, long time.
You may want to also read Moving Beyond Oil and Running on Water on that Aesop site.
With adequate support, a 24/7 development program could move breakthrough technologies into production.
We can supersede oil faster than might be imagined.
This may prove to be an emergency equivalent to all out war!
These new technologies are much less complicated than weapons systems.
The science is hard to believe, as it disagrees with conventional wisdom. But, independent and National laboratories are increasingly involved. Once prototypes for schools are in production, it will become obvious that gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power will face low cost competition that can leave all of them behind.
Recognize this emergency! We have a difficult, but possible, job to do!
So, let's begin to really do it! An important step is to learn more about what to do!
long ago that the oil and gas had to be removed, at the wellhead, as quickly as it gushes. This
would require a massive industrial and maritime effort, and a high degree of mobilisation. The day is
growing late and the damage is mounting, maybe it's too late.
The oil spill has a grip on more than just the Gulf Coast. That means it is a national emergency. Where is the leadership that understands that?
An interesting comparison I saw shows the oil value off the Gulf of Mexico is worth trillions of dollars vs only the billions of dollars the combined (non oil) economies of the Gulf states represent. The conclusion of this comparison was that therefore the oil will be obtained at all costs because it is worth more. As more life is destroyed and our economy - and our fellow citizens' lives - declines, where is the trillions of dollars for that oil coming from? Like the death of the Gulf of Mexico and our economy won't have an impact on the world economy? Good luck with that.