BEST DU post on the BP disaster -- IT'S NOT ABOUT OBAMA

[nashville_brook]

not about Obama

Posted by William Z. Foster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8398408&mesg_id=8399215

I cannot remember anything quite so obscene as this ongoing attempt to turn this unprecedented catastrophe into a matter of Obama's popularity.

I reject utterly this line of attack on critics - "you little children are not smart enough to understand all of this technical stuff, so we need to rely on the experts."

I reject utterly the false claim that critics are unreasonably demanding that "this blowout be fixed today, tomorrow, or next month" and are therefore impatient or unrealistic.

I reject utterly the false claim that critics are calling for nationalizing BP, a straw man which then can be dismissed by you as . Some of us are calling for nationalizing the response to the catastrophe.

I reject utterly that "the US government has no technology capable of dealing with this situation" so therefore BP must maintain control and direction of the response.

I reject utterly the suggestion that critics are complaining because Obama has not spoken reassuring words about this, and that this is the problem. This is another straw man you have set up and knocked down.

I reject this premise: "given the inability of the Federal government to actually do anything to ameliorate the problem..." That argument is the libertarian argument used to undermine and discredit any government action about anything ever.

No one is calling for "penalizing BP without due process," or even worrying much at all about punishing BP. This is yet another way to discredit critics - suggesting that they are merely looking for revenge or retribution, and it is then strongly implied that this is for some personal emotional reasons.

No one is saying that this is "President Obama's disaster." People are saying that this is President Obama's response to the disaster. Where should we look for a response if not to the White House?

I reject this statement: "Anyone can say anything he or she wishes but, without direct knowledge of this specific field, they're just blabbering." This is nonsense. People most cewrtai9nly can speak about the public interest and welfare, and about the government's response, without having any technical knowledge. This is a call for silencing critics. It is abhorrent and unacceptable.

No one is expecting President Obama to reverse what happened nor asking that he "pull a Superman deal and fly around the Earth and turn back time." this is another straw man argument being used to discredit critics.

[SidDithers]

1. No, it's not...

unrec.

Sid

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

40. We welcome your hatred.

Or as you guys say, "Bring it on!"
:rofl:

[SidDithers]

44. No hatred...

just a disagreement that this post is the "BEST DU post on the BP disaster"

Sad that you're making it personal, tho.

Sid

[TheWatcher]

83. Actually you made it personal not too long ago when you claimed that people were giddy and taking

pleasure at the potential magnitude of the disaster, when all they were doing was trying to shed light on BP's attempted cover-up and deception regarding their response and the way they were handling it.

One in particular who actually LIVES ON THE GULF COAST, and was much closer to the situation than you were.

You had nothing to say when you were called out on it either.

You are the last person that should be accusing people of making things "personal".

[Greyhound]

103. These guys always remind me of Monty Python,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915#">Argument Clinic.

"An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

"No,it isn't."
:rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

54. why?

What could possibly be that controversial or objectionable?

I am laying out the case for a traditional Democratic party approach, the opposite case from the right wing privatization ideas. Going back to the Republican party of the 1850's the progressive and left wing forces in this country have always called for this approach - government intervention to represent the interests of the less powerful, to protect public welfare. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and RFK spoke out strongly for the same position, as has every organized Labor leader, and every progressive and liberal voice in the country for over 150 years.

This is an approach that, should the administration follow it, could only make the administration stronger and more successful.

Why would anyone here have a problem with this?

[SidDithers]

73. Why what?...

It's my opinion that your post isn't the "BEST DU post on the BP disaster", as the original poster is asserting.

Why are people having such a hard time with that concept?

Sid

[William Z. Foster]

82. LOL

Well who cares if it is the "best post?"

I above no problem with that concept. I am inclined to agree with you that it is not the "best post ever."

But never mind that. What about the content?

[SusanaMontana41]

105. For the record, I DO think

yours is one of the best posts about the federal response to this catastrophe. So there. :fistbump:

[Individualist]

3. Thank you for posting this. K&R

[nashville_brook]

4. you're welcome -- i'm sickened by the internecine warring on this issue -- it's not about egos

and the people who can't see past political gamesmanship are seriously making me question the value of being a member here.

[Individualist]

5. You're not the only one who's sickened

by the smarmy attempts to make this devastating catastrophe a political issue.

[SidDithers]

8. Right...

and who are the ones trying to politicize the issue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8397404

Sid

[nashville_brook]

17. is that what this is about? a graphic that someone posted hours ago? really? wow.

[SidDithers]

21. That graphic illustrates that there's a faction here that IS politicizing the spill...

it's disingenious to claim otherwise. To some, it IS about Obama.

Sid

[William Z. Foster]

56. he is the president

Calling for the president to take action as the head of the government is not politicizing anything. It is "governmentizing" things. Calculating the damage or benefit to a politician's career is what is politicizing the issue, and turning every discussion into a "for or against Obama" war of talking points is what is politicizing the issue.

He is being defended here as a politician, in a partisan political context, as though he were still running for office on the campaign trail. The critics and dissenters are speaking about him as the president of the United States - as a public official.

He is in the office now. It is appropriate that he is the one people look to for leadership - as a public official, not as a political figure.

[SidDithers]

76. Suggesting that the President is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP...

as implied by that graphic is politicizing the issue.

Hell, I've been posting about the spill since April 21. I've worked in the oil spill response industry. I've tried to keep my discussions to the possible solutions that might mitigate this epic disaster. I'm just sick and tired of the uninformed expecting miracles to happen, and stamping their feet when they don't.

And, I maintain that there is a group of posters here who will look for, and post, the absolute most negative spin possible when it comes to Obama's actions.

Criticism is fine. Idiotic expectations are not.

Sid

[William Z. Foster]

84. I didn't

What I will say is this - corporations have tremendous influence over our politicians and our government and public policy.

Nothing I have said could even remotely be characterized as "expecting miracles to happen" or "stomping my feet."

How is that graphic about "idiotic expectations" or the stomping of feet.

If it is true that "there is a group of posters here who will look for, and post, the absolute most negative spin possible when it comes to Obama's actions" then how come the same people are saying the same things as they did before the election, and how come all of their criticism is consistent with left wing political views? All a coincidence? That seems unlikely.

[janx]

46. Now that is just stupid.

I had not seen that before. Wow.

[nashville_brook]

47. and so, from now on -- b/c someone posted a stupid graphic -- everything about the Gulf of Mexico

dying will be unrecc'd, ignored and argued endlessly.

man, that's sad.

[janx]

50. Where did you get that idea?

That seems like an unreasonable assumption to make. I've chatted with you more than once, and I've posted many threads on the subject of the disaster.

[DirkGently]

11. What, really, is going on there?

I'm not clear on why there are "sides" on an issue like history's worst oil spill.

[William Z. Foster]

57. it is strange

Government responds when there is pressure. There cannot be pressure without criticism and dissent. Some object to any pressure on the politicians, claiming that this "hurts" them and helps the opposition. They therefore see any criticism as though it were treasonous or disloyal.

Ironically, nothing cripples an administration more than insulating it from or protecting it from public criticism and dissent.

It would be impossible to have a healthy functioning democracy if we were all to fall mute and become passive once "our team" is in office.

[SusanaMontana41]

106. Thank you, thank you, thank you

We must speak out. Silence won't save us.

[Upton]

6. Excellent post.

Thanks..

[nashville_brook]

16. thank the author, maybe in a PM --

i saw this in another thread -- waaaaay down toward the bottom, and it is one of those gems that just needed more attention.

[DirkGently]

7. Hear hear

There'a a lot disingenuous strawmanning going on with these weirdly haughty attacks on anyone not willing to leave things to the "experts" (read: BP and the oil industry). Not sure what the motivation is, but a fair chunk seems to be some strain of over-the-top Obama defenderism we've seen in recent months, seasoned with a dash of the "experts only" canard popular with internet cranks.

It's not ABOUT Obama. He didn't cause the spill, nor is he expected to wave a fairy wand to fix it. But that's not the point, and that's not what anyone I've seen has even remotely suggested.

However, the situation does fall under Obama's responsibility, and the administration's, and this IS a situation in which our federal government has a specific duty to actively intervene. Anyone who doesn't think the federal government has a role in both protecting the environment and intervening when corporate powers that be are actively damaging America has a fundamental misunderstanding of the institution.

"We the People" do have a say in this, do have both the right and the ability to demand that this be handled by experts not motivated by corporate ass-covering, and the administration should have a role in that.

NOTE: Interestingly ferocious neg-recc'ing going on here. What is it, exactly, that is so threatening about criticism of the oil cleanup? And to whom? This whole drumbeat reeks of someone(s?) with a very specific agenda with a very deep need to get people to shut up and let this disaster continue to unfold exactly as it has been.

[Lorien]

22. Their agenda is a corporate one

corporations do in fact hire people to spread their propaganda on various online forums. Google "Pay per post".

[Crystal Clarity]

52. Ha!...And all this time I thought

you guys were the pay-per-post people :tinfoilhat:

:hide:

[William Z. Foster]

59. ROFL

Leftists are all broke. Of course. Look around. can people not see the plain and obvious reality about the social conditions under which they live? Has there ever been a population of people more deeply in denial and fantasy land?

Actually, working people are all broke until and unless they can and will shill for corporations one way or another, directly or indirectly, and that work is only available to about 10% of the US population at most, and less than 1% of the world's population. But the entire political discussion is dominated by that tiny percentage.

[Crystal Clarity]

70. So are you saying that ALL politicians

are corporate shills? All of them, even on the State levels and lower? :shrug:

I ask this because I don't see very much of that in my state. It helps alot of course, that we have publicly financed campaigns here. Would you be less cynical if we could somehow have public financing of campaigns on the federal level?

(I realize this is a little off topic, but ties in somewhat in the sense that so many people here seem to be linking Obama to big corporations)

[blindpig]

95. Yeah, and I didn't get my check from Comitern either....

[Lorien]

67. Yeah? Who would we be working for?

Like I said; Google "Pay per post". It's the usual suspects who do the paying; big oil, big pharma, big ag, the RNC and DLC...Liberal Progressives only have small businesses, unions, environmental groups and the likes on their side-organizations who don't NEED to spin the truth!

[Crystal Clarity]

71. OK so I'll ask you the same

question... see post #87

[nashville_brook]

30. as long as corporate power THREATENS human life, marine life, animal life, all life...then we need

our democratically elected to step in and do their job to protect us, our land and this nation.

this is beyond politics -- this is real, folks.

[Starry Messenger]

9. Seriously.

And I would only add that posters who are using this disaster to calculate some metric of political gain for and against the right wing are scaring me deeply. There's more to life than elections, people.

[nashville_brook]

14. i can't help but think they have no sense of the magnitude of destruction we're facing.

there's no other explanation. i refuse to accept that people are so petty.

[Starry Messenger]

31. There's another word for that.

It starts with S and ends with Pathic.

[nashville_brook]

32. ah -- you've stumped me. all i can think of is sycophantic.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Sociopathic. n/t

[nashville_brook]

45. omg -- and, this from a sociology post grad.

:spank:

[Starry Messenger]

62. I made it a little vaguer than I should have.

My apologies. Kick!

[Swamp Rat]

43. I agree

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

49. That's it right there. Very few minds can even begin to grasp the scale of

this disaster. Nor the economic and social disasters we are suffering, for that matter.

[Lorien]

19. Amen. nt

[leftstreet]

26. +1

[donco6]

65. Yes.

Epecially in the face of Swamp Rat's pleading for help. Disgusting display there.

[Catherina]

10. Great post. Rec'd but still shamefully plunging n/t

[nashville_brook]

12. you know, it might be nice to send the author a PM

and let him know, too -- i saw this in another thread and it completely summed up what's wrong with the discussion here on DU as it's evolved today.

[William Z. Foster]

55. thanks

Appreciate you starting a thread and thanks for your kind words.

[William Z. Foster]

61. that is OK

The fact that it is being furiously unrecced is itself damning, and it is valuable information for us to have.

Why would anyone not want this discussion to happen? One would think that people are simply honestly expressing their opinions, views that just happen coincidentally to align with BP's interests. But unreccing an opposing view - that suggests very strongly that the opposition is not innocent, and also that they do not have a very strong argument.

I have been kicking and reccing the pro-BP, pro-privatization posts. Why not? Let's debate the issue. I am not afraid of it. If there is a pro-BP or pro-privatization argument out there that is compelling and supportable, I want to hear it and could even change my mind. But someone sure is afraid of this discussion.

[seabeyond]

13. "false claim... unreasonable expect.. fixed tomorrow, .... " this is reasonable to you?

that is just one. totally false statement. yes, it is unreasonable to expect this can be fixed tomorrow. no it is not a false claim.

that is just ONE line

[nashville_brook]

15. not sure what your point is -- can you elaborate?

[seabeyond]

36. to argue it isnt about obama, isnt about being unknowledgable, expect too much, and so much more of

the post is not true.

thread after thread after thread is exactly that.

i just went into one thread that had bp logo and obama logo in middle.... and people agreeing.

if i wanted to spend the time, i could pull up threads that totally counter what the op is saying

i dont get it

last night this psoter telling me they needed moratorium, adn obama has already done it. ????

then i am told by another poster, not enough. still have leak. will no shit

[Lorien]

18. Excellent post. I'd add that BP

can only implement solutions which will positively effect BP's bottom line. By law, a corporation cannot take an action which does not benefit it's stock holders. Thus the siphoning. Thus the drilling of additional wells. Thus the use of toxic dispersants which BP owns the patents to. Far better-but non profitable*-solutions exist. But as long as BP is in change they will not be permitted.


*The EPA suggested many less toxic, more effective dispersants that BP rejected. Citizens have proven that hay and grass clipping were an extremely effective, low tech green way to suck up the oil-but there has been no effort to try the idea, even in unprotected environmentally sensitive areas. Then there's this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10685219 clearly, if it doesn't come from BP then it's not considered a "valid" idea.

[nashville_brook]

20. yep -- that's the whole problem in a nutshell. that's a great premise for a law review article.

there needs be a provision whereby corps cannot be sued by shareholders for acting in the public interest when it negatively effects the bottom line -- otherwise we're creating a world where the only choice is to act against human interest. it's obscene.

[Lorien]

24. Absolutely. You summed it up in just one sentence. nt

[nashville_brook]

28. "fiduciary duty" on has actually a been a BIG topic of conversation here, since the oil eruption...

and by 'here,' i mean around the house with the my closest lawyer buddy.

[Lorien]

68. I'd like to hear what your lawyer friend has to say. Obviously the apologists won't

even touch this fact.

[DirkGently]

25. Dead-on

BP, like any corporation, has a "fiduciary duty" to stockholders to guard profitability first, and everything else second. Which is exactly why we've all been talking about reversing the calculated deconstruction of government regulation since Reagan. Exactly why, I wonder, is that core progressive notion not not supposed to apply to this situation?

[Lorien]

69. You've got me. All of a sudden a slew of former Progressives are newly minted Reaganites

pontificating on the merits of Big Corporations and the uselessness of government. Same line that the teabaggers spew. They're totally mum on the "fiduciary duty" aspect of this. Still figuring out how they can spin it, obviously.

[blindpig]

96. And that is the problem: Capitalism.

This economic order guarantees that humanity and nature be trampled upon whenever profits require.

[Lerkfish]

23. kicked and rec'd

[leftstreet]

27. K&R

[inna]

29. K&R

[Are_grits_groceries]

33. K & R nt

[PopSixSquish]

35. Oh, It's Most Definitely About Obama for Many on This Site Depending on One's Perspective

It's also about a whole bunch of other things as well including our inability to look for solutions without screaming at the top of our lungs first...

[nashville_brook]

37. newsflash -- this is a democracy where the people's voices are supposed to mean something

[nashville_brook]

38. newsflash -- this is a "democratic" forum where people are meant to "speak out"

[nashville_brook]

39. newsflash -- in a "participatory democracy" we are encouraged to "participate"

[nashville_brook]

41. newsflash -- critiquing the role of BP does not exclude problem solving

[PopSixSquish]

48. LOL - Thanks for the Response(s) and I Don't Disagree With You on Them

I'm merely stating an opinion of the behavior I see on this message board...

[William Z. Foster]

63. it is a shame

It shouldn't be.

What is really a shame is that Obama has now tied his own political fortunes and success to the actions of a private corporation. That makes him in effect a privatized politician, running a privatized administration. That is not good for him, nor the party, let alone all of us.

One would think that the more people wanted Obama to succeed, the more they liked him, the more loyal they were, the more they would want him to federalize the response rather than rely on BP and just hope things work out.

[nashville_brook]

79. so well said -- it's the half-turn of the focal ring that clears the whole field of vision.

everyone here was thrilled when Obama was elected and we want him to succeed. this isn't amounting to a 'win' for him (or us), unfortunately. this is actually weakening his political position.

[Swamp Rat]

42. k&r

:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

51. Yes, this is an excellent post.

I have just discovered this DUer and his posts are gold. May I give him a belated welcome to DU.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

74. Huh?

:wtf:

[laughingliberal]

58. Rec nt

[chill_wind]

60. K & R. I reject the preachy condescending STFU stuff, too.

No one at DU has a monopoly on all the facts. I just left a thread attacking and ranting at so-called appalling lack of information by Duers, that was frankly peppered with it's own flawed premises and straw building in some of those same aspects. :-(

It's DU. We're going to disagree about what we hear, learn and read. But don't try to tell me a hell of a lot of DUers here aren't doing a good job bringing tons of factual information and investigative digging here every day for discussion to this board.

[nashville_brook]

80. condescension is a perfect word for that -- it's why it riled so many people, and

stoked much authoritarian piling-on.

[Bryn]

64. K&R

Thumb Up!

[Eyerish]

66. K&R

Thank you for posting this....:thumbsup:

[LostInAnomie]

72. So, now simply saying "I reject (fill in the blank)" counts as brilliant discussion?

Is that any different than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!"?

[tallahasseedem]

77. +1

Precisely.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostInAnomie]

87. I must of missed that part.

Did you do that in another post other than this one?

[William Z. Foster]

88. yes

I didn't post this here - you may have noticed that. The context for the discussion is missing.

[WillyT]

75. HUGE K & R !!!

:applause:

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[TheKentuckian]

78. A rec to cancel out the corporate stooges and those putting political calculation

over concerns that far exceed any such considerations.

[opihimoimoi]

81. add 1 more KnR...it was pure greed to forego safety guards for such a probability

[treestar]

86. The rejection of reality is a serious problem

The demand that the government, whether Obama or not, prevent all evils and be able to fix them is childish.

It's like a doctor saying you have an incurable disease but screaming that the doctor had better cure it right now.

[William Z. Foster]

89. begging your pardon?

Why misrepresent what someone else said?

I did not "demand that the government prevent all evils" or say anything even remotely like that.

That is just intentionally malicious and deceptive on your part.

[TheWatcher]

91. There does seem to be a contingent of gatekeepers on the Site whose sole agenda is to manage

perception and control the message and tone of the board on certain issues.

This particular has really brought them out into the light.

[nashville_brook]

92. it's like the primaries never ended.

[glitch]

98. As long as they believe perception trumps reality, they never will. nt

[William Z. Foster]

100. worse than that

What we are seeing is people who are very determined to push an extremely conservative political agenda, by any means necessary. They are arguing against the very concept of government, against the purpose of government, they are arguing the libertarian position. So are they really defending Obama, the politician, or are they using him to push a conservative agenda?

It surprised me to see the responses to the calls for federalizing the disaster recovery operation. Hell, Republican administrations - Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover for God's sake - would have nationalized the response to this horrific calamity, let alone FDR, JFK or LBJ.

It is bad enough that people are so violently opposing a left wing New Deal direction, bad enough that they are arguing against a LBJ style administration, bad enough that they are taking positions to the right of the Carter and even the Clinton administrations, but we have people arguing some sort of pre-American Revolution, pre-British parliamentary, pre-Enlightenment anti-government position here.

People are arguing against any role for the government other than as a handmaiden to corporations, an advisory panel of lords assisting and cooperating with the wealthy.

[Senator]

90. K&+R

[Raster]

93. Now this post I will recommend!

:kick:

[olegramps]

94. Please explain to me just what the President isn't doing that he should be doing.

I have listened to the criticism of Obama for not doing more, but I haven't heard exactly what is available that he is not employing. Every statement that I have seen issued by the Coast Guard has appeared to support the efforts that are now being used. If there is something that should be done that isn't being done I will be the first to join in the criticism, but until then I will just have to remain silent in my ignorance.

[inna]

97. 109 recs, 58 unrecs

Interesting dynamics.

[Arkana]

99. IT'SH THE BESHT POSHT ON THE FORUMSH!

[me b zola]

101. K&R

[Beetwasher]

102. I REJECT THESE REJECTIONS-Matter Settled

I also reject the letter "M". There are 25 other letters in the alphabet, we don't need "M".

I reject the notion that the sun has to rise in the East. We can go to the moon, but the sun has to rise in the East??

I reject gravity. With all the power of of everything I reject the notion that we have to live with gravity. What is the reason for this????

I reject Oxygen. You're telling me I can't breath Methane??? What kind of propoganda is that?

[SidDithers]

107. Nicely done...

:applause:

Sid

[earth mom]

104. Too late to rec, but huge kick for truth!!!

:kick: