The Meaning of the Oil Spill
by: Eli Zaretsky on June 11th, 2010 | 9 Comments »
It is not possible to imagine a better symbol of the miserable condition of the United States today than an oil company destroying a huge swath of the American ecosystem, society and economy, while the President sits by helplessly, saying that he is meeting with experts in order to find out “whose ass to kick.” Obviously, Obama should have seized all the equipment that BP had available to plug the leak, deputized their engineers, brought in the US navy and coast guard, and spent as necessary to deal with the problem within days, or even hours of the original spill, when it became clear that BP was in over its head.
That is what Lincoln did in 1861 when he took control of the railroads and telegraph lines around Washington DC, what Wilson did in 1916 when he nationalized the defense industries, what Roosevelt did in 1941 when he seized an aviation plant, and again in 1944 when he seized Montgomery Ward, it is what Truman did in 1947 when the government took control of the steel industry, in a sense it is what Reagan did in 1980 when the government fired the air controllers. These acts were all controversial but that is what strong Presidents did when facing threats no less severe than those in the Gulf today.
Why hasn’t Obama done anything like that? Ultimately the answer depends on understanding his individual character, but there are at least four large conditioning factors that will help us understand, if not the man, then the event.
First, since the 1970s neo-liberals have told us that we need small government, that markets are the best way of solving problems, that private industry is efficient and that government is wasteful. It is worth noting, at this point, that it was the Democrats who led the way in these delusions, beginning during the Carter administration, and that it is only the sham of politics that they sometimes associate themselves with populist positions. Whichever party is responsible, however, it apparently has never occurred to anyone that there is a difference between an oil company, which can only be guided by profit, and a government that can take collective, democratic needs and wishes into account. The whole sad tale shows how Americans have degraded politics and exalted markets and for what? Cheap prices?
Second, we can learn from the incident how Obama functions as a President. He is a manager, with a managerial ideology. This doesn’t only mean the priority of private interests and “cost-cutting” for such “entitlements” as equipment to deal with oil spills, not to mention health care and social security. In his case it means that he has no real authority of his own, that he has disregarded his base from the beginning, and that his method of governing is to call a meeting of the elites or powers that be, and have them come up with a solution. The powers can be generals, insurance companies, oil companies, and they can even be Republicans, but Obama is a deal maker, a trimmer, not someone trying to move the country in a new direction.
Third, we can see from the incident how in the neo-liberal era everything is understood in money terms. Thus, BP consistently promises that it will make everything right by paying claims, and Obama consistently insists that he will make them pay those claims. As if money can compensate for the destruction of communities, of marshes, of beaches, of wildlife and birds, of streams and trees and shrubs and whole ways of life embedded in the Gulf. What kind of nation suffers a wound of this sort, and thinks in terms of money? The same kind of nation that suffers a paradigm-changing blow like the recent financial crisis and acts as if controlling a few financial maneuvers will fix the problem.
Finally, we can learn from the spill that there is a difference between decisions based on values, and decisions based on data. This is a distinction Obama fails to make. His scientistic, anti-party, anti-political ideology, which he has used for health care and Afghanistan has certainly failed in the Gulf. A health care plan, a war, off-shore drilling: these are questions that need to be discussed in terms of our values, not supposedly scientific data. Yet when Obama announced that he was permitting offshore drilling three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew he said “It turns out, by the way that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” As if he knows!
Finally, as for the policy change itself, prompted by Obama’s deal making over energy, according to the New York Times, “The breadth of the expansion stunned oil industry representatives, who were expecting a much more restrictive policy accompanied by tough new safety and environmental rules. They were prepared to attack the new policy; instead, the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main lobby, praised it.” Enough said.



I don’t know why people are wondering why Lord-Dick is still keeping his mouth shut – ” ” ” BP: Iraq Oil Deal is Start of Something Big ” ” ” – - – The American Taxpayers have already been li.ed too – and already bailed-out BP – - -How many lifes and money have already benifited BP ???? You see the Founding Faters were well aware of the lying cheaters the elitistes – were – are and always will be – Thus The Constitution – Nothing ever to be held above it – - – WOOO unto those who ever – Try to take away from it !!!! On the scales of Justices – arrogance of eliti.suim is balanced by the anger of the People !!!!
Great analysis of probability-causation. Thanks. What we are witnessing is a number of puzzle pieces that, if understood by most Americans would provide a frame of orientation, comprehension, plans and actions. Sadly, the intellectual capacity and ability coupled with meaningful experience (learning) are woefully lacking.
I think this article takes too broad and heavy-handed a swipe at the President and his administration. It is NOT clear that, contrary to what Eli Zaretsky imagines, the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard has the tech expertise to have stopped the leak any more quickly than BP did.
It is clear, however, that (after the leak has been stopped and the cleanup process well underway, knowing that the environmental damage will still be dreadful) a full investigation of the roles of BP, Halliburton, and the Minerals Management Service, etc., is required, out of which will likely come criminal charges, heavy fines and new and stiffer regulations of offshore drilling.
It is also very possible and even likely – I hope – that out of this debacle, a much higher national priority to fund research leading to clean alternative energy sources will be forthcoming, with the active support of MOST of the American public, apart from the ultra-conservative faction among us.
It might help to start with some real info. If you’ve never heard of Thomas Gold and abiotic( abiogenic ) oil you’re not ready for the following article, but you should get ready, in order to understand what is coming. The Russians bought into Gold’s theory many years ago in pioneering deep oil drilling.
“According to Kutcherov, a leading specialist in the theory of abiogenic deep origin of petroleum, “What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.”[2] Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19660
Straight out, does Zaretsky want “tort reform”? That’s where health professionals want to limit their finanical (yes, money) liability in cases of medical malpractice. He ought to work for the insurance industry who frequently point out that they ought not be asked to satisfy obligations with plain old ordinary dollars and cents.
Of course it is not possible to return a life when it is lost on account of accident or deliberate recklessness. But all we can do is to sue for financial compensation, when no other kind of compensation is possible.
To criticize the president writing, ” What kind of nation suffers a wound of this sort, and thinks in terms of money?” amounts to comedy. You better believe that people who have been injured are thinking about money. Their injuries are financial, as well as personal. With one broad stroke Zaretsky would abolish the civil courts’ job. You gotta be kidding.
This article sounds like familiar “tea party” propaganda which assumes that government is to blame for all our miseries and any ordinary citizen could do a better job. When it comes to a technological disaster, I’d just as soon have the technicians at work. Or are they sinister and incompetent, too?
Mr. Zaretsky–enough of the “shouda, woulda, coulda!!” it’s all too easy to be the ‘monday morning quarterback.’ instead of using your God-given energy to criticize, condemn/judge Obama & others, how about using it to offer support? compassion? somehow i don’t believe you–at the time–could have done any better. is it possible for you/all of us to be open to seeing, believing that each of us, all the time, is doing the best he/she can given their level of knoweledge/awareness? what’s the most loving way for you to see something? the most compassionate? what brings you peace? [hint--it ain't condemnation]
Ah, apologia. Save the ‘first to throw stones’ argument for church.
Obama wanted to be president, and it is his job to get himself up to speed and do something – but he won’t. This is an evil man, arrogant, uncaring, money- and power-driven, and a very good manipulator – much like most sociopaths. Funny, people who only read his speeches tended to recognize them for nothing but empty words, while people who listened – or worse, watched on television – tended to come away thinking he’s actually said something. Something about hope and some kind of change, and how, yes, we can… uh… do something or other…
Obama is a liar and hypocrite. He was against the war – while he represented a liberal district on the state level. Once in the Senate, where he could do something… well, did he ever meet a war-funding bill he didn’t love? He said he was against telecom immunity and would not vote for it… but didn’t he vote for it in that un-lovely FISA bill? He assured a reporter before being elected, that however good his chances for a run for the White House might look, he would finish out his term in the Senate. Uh-huh… [And why didn't all the brilliant Obama voters realize they were being set up? Obama had not yet been elected to national office, but a reporter was asking about a run for the White House? National television, people, right after his (in)famous Democratic National Convention speech.]
Corporatist, militarist, imperialist = Obama = evil.
Who could have done better in this case? My dead dog, for a start. He wouldn’t have come up with a solution, either; but at least he wouldn’t have been handing out drilling permits like candy at Halloween.
free beat producer
There are other options for the Obama Administration, and one of them is the “nuclear option,” use of
a peaceful nuclear explosive to seal the broken well. The Russians have done this a few times. You can
read about it here in “The Nuclear Option against British Sabotage in Our Gulf.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/BP_nuclear-option.pdf,