Monday, June 14, 2010

Oil leak disaster exposes hole in conspiracy-theorist consistency

I don't know about this Gulf of Mexico oil spill, dear reader. The fact that it's eclipsed the Exxon Valdez spill in magnitude is all-too-clear. Part of me is cheering the President on; I'm glad Obama's angry. But, I question, why is he angry—are there extenuating circumstances behind the obvious reason that someone is behind this disaster and deserves an ass-kicking?
Some people think that Obama's response to the crisis was as laconic as Bush's regarding Hurricane Katrina. Others say that the President's executive order shutting down domestic oil-drilling operations is a case of too much and too late. I wouldn't necessarily argue with either.
It's obvious to me that Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, cares a lot more about profit than the environmental impact of his company's big-time screw-up. His insensitive, moronically flippant comments in defense of his company bear testimony to that.
It's also apparent that the Prez is endangering the "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K. by focusing a little too much on the "British" in British Petroleum. It's as if the British themselves are suddenly of two minds: Well, yes, we did root for him, but blimey, he's a bit of an ingrate, isn't he? You could see the amazement, and even hurt, on the anchormen's faces on the evening news when they reported that Obama wished to know "whose ass to kick," knowing full well that it likely meant limey ass. BP pension holders are certainly rethinking their affection for the Messiah.
Is this the whole story though? Of course not. We have to see how this continues to play out. I would, however, like to present you with a hypothetical situation, dear reader.
It's midterm election time, right? Obama is nowhere near as popular as he was on the domestic front when he first got elected. Incumbents all over the country are facing defeat due to anti-establishment sentiment, and Obama himself no longer seems above the establishment but part of it.
So imagine a secret White House call going through to BP headquarters, instructing them to cook up an oil leak in the Gulf. Imagine BP willing to do this without fear of serious reprisal because they know they'll be protected. Indulge yourself the thought that Mr. Obama told Mr. Hayward, "Hey, I'm gonna have to pretend to be very angry with you, but don't sweat it. Thanks for your help, Tony."
Sound implausbile? Sound insane? Of course it does.
But, if you could believe that Dubya Bush could order more than 3,000 deaths to bolster support for an aggressive foreign policy—something he campaigned against in 2000—I suppose you could be hare-brained enough to believe Obama engineered the BP Gulf disaster.
After all, where's your conspiratorial outrage now, you crunchy granola types? Moreover, where's your consistency?

2 comments:

goddessdivine said...

Obama's "anger" is contrived. And I really didn't care for the "ass-kicking" comment. Not because of the word "ass", because a president shouldn't be talking about kicking anyone's ass. It's also a little ironic, because really, the only ass that needs to be kicked is his own. Get out of the way and let the experts do their job!! And give them what they need!

rocslinger said...

I love how you turned conspiracy on its ear in this post. I think that the left has been inconsistant for so long that they don't even try to defend it, they just try and point fingers at what they concieve as our inconsistancies.

I think that some time lately the poles flipped polarity and we just didn't notice. How else do you explain this bizzaro world we live in. Yeah I could sometimes pass for a conspiracy nut, difference being no one who knows me takes me seriously, including myaelf.