Saturday, June 12, 2010

Dereliction of Duty

So, what’s the president supposed to do: jump in a diving suit and dive down and cap that leak in the Gulf himself? I don’t believe any sane person would actually make such a suggestion. It is definitely not part of the job description. This realization does not relieve him of the responsibility to do those things which are within his capability to accomplish.

Each president has a perk which allows certain federal rules and regulations to be over-ridden in an emergency. Nearly every president has exercised this authority in one crisis or another throughout history to restore order and safety. This is not subversion of legislative or regulatory intent but rather a temporary response to achieve a solution for some imperiled segment of our society. The federal government has clear authority over these far off shore drilling operations on our coasts. Keep in mind that it was the feds who insisted on these remote hyper depth locations in the first place.

A stroke of the pen would have allowed foreign friends to render aid within hours of the initiation of the oil spill disaster. The time it takes to dial one telephone number would have put him in contact with Tony Hayward, the BP CEO, for a discussion of reality and possible mutually agreed solutions. In eight weeks, no such call has been made. The much needed boom sections to contain the spill remains stored in the warehouse of the manufacturer in Maine waiting for an anticipated but not forthcoming contact from the government. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is watching with horror as the coastal salt marshes face decimation. EPA regulations also have hindered the use of “sand berms.”

While all of this supports the current apparent picture of presidential ineptitude, it cannot simply be attributed to his failures of action. One comes to suspect that there is a deeper cause for ignoring this problem. Let’s face it; the president’s negative attitudes toward the British have been barely concealed since day one. The first outward signs were the return of the Churchill bust and insulting gifts to the royalty. In spite of being the top recipient of campaign donations from the mammoth oil company (BP), it appears he has set them up as the “fall guy” to assume total responsibility for the spill. One glaring fact does cause a question; what caused the initial disaster on the rig? Until that is satisfactorily answered, we are left only with speculation.

There is no mystery about the family attitude which formed the childhood Obama. The dysfunctional aspects of abandonment, rotating fathers, unstable home locations, have led to the formation of defensive mechanisms triggered to counteract his instability in environment. In this milieu, there were few persons with the traditional American respect for our former enemies, the British. It should be obvious that the traditional and easily verifiable story of the adversaries becoming best friends and mutual supporters were absent from his early childhood. On the contrary it is far more likely that the British were portrayed as oppressors (see his father’s Kenyan background) rather than a benign force.

In a brilliant article from the American Thinker, we read a psychotherapist’s observations of the commander-in-chief. For those interested in the innermost workings of the mind, you will find the analysis insightful and blessedly, modest in its appraisal. While it is interesting, and probably as accurate as a distant evaluation can be, it does not account for what I have concluded is a conscious action for the continuance of the disaster.

It was announced from the oval office a few days prior to the explosion on the oil rig that further drilling would be allowed in those specific off-shore waters and others on the East coast and off Alaska. I joined the gullible fools and cheered the announcement. We all should have known better. Any follower of the oil business should have questioned this 180° change of attitude and become suspicious. In the early days after the disaster, we find that ukase rescinded for an unspecified period. Gaining a permit at this moment for drilling of any sort would be an arduous task.

The “accident”, the subsequent gusher, denial of assistance, and failure to use available resources to cap and contain the spill all serve to encourage our dependence on foreign oil. If one was a mid-east oil magnate, this would be cause for rejoicing. With absolute control of the Justice Department, it is unlikely that any investigations will reveal much about how this all came to pass and who is responsible. I strongly suspect that if the causes of the disaster were to be isolated and the subsequent inaction of the government was to be established, a common author would be found.

So, who “dun it?” The current body of evidence points to the president but with one remaining caveat. Is he acting on his own warped initiative or as a tool of some unidentified exterior source? From lengthy and careful observation, the inclination is to acknowledge his skills and still see him as a robot operating at the behest of a third party force. At the minimum, he is definitely guilty of “dereliction of duty.”

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

No comments: