-
Alan Abelson, RIP
May 10, 2013 | 20 comments
-
South Carolina on My Mind
April 30, 2013 | 31 comments
-
Dream Sequences
April 26, 2013 | 62 comments
-
Just Like a Woman
April 25, 2013 | 35 comments
-
Missing So Many
April 19, 2013 | 41 comments
A Further Perspective
The Elephant and the Obama Question
Some additional thoughts on the oil spill.
Okay, short and sweet. Herewith a few thoughts on the oil spill, President Obama, marine and land life, truth, and consequences.
1.) President Obama has famously asked what he could have done personally about the oil spill. He said he could not swim down there and suck up the oil with a straw, and he’s right.
But when Norway and the Netherlands offered to send the world’s best oil skimming ships to the Gulf to help, Mr. Obama turned them down flat. He did this entirely to protect his pals in the maritime shipping unions. Okay, that’s what we expect from a left-wing Democrat. But if we cannot plug that gusher underwater, wouldn’t skimming up the oil be the next best thing? How can Mr. Obama not face serious charges about protecting a few hundred union jobs and killing the Gulf Coast?
And why doesn’t he change his mind right now and ask every country in the world to help us?
2.) Mr. Obama has been using this terrible accident to blame and castigate the oil companies. Inasmuch as the big oil companies are literally the only people on the planet who have even a clue about how to deal with the crisis, shouldn’t he act nice to them instead of humiliating them? If your house is on fire, you politely ask the neighbors for help. You don’t yell at them and call them names. Why not ask them nicely to help and see what response you get? How can that possibly hurt?
3.) The criminal investigation and prosecution powers of the Justice Department are awesome powers. For the President to sic Eric Holder, the Attorney General, and his hounds on BP without even having a clue if there were a criminal violation is way too much like the actions of a Molotov, Stalin’s prosecutor in his show trials, and much too little like what we expect under the Constitution, where even the most hated are presumed to have rights (unless they are in the oil business, in which case they are automatically guilty).
4.) I can always tell which people have never read the Constitution and/or have no idea of Constitutional law by who says, “It doesn’t matter that the law does not allow Mr. Obama to just extort money out of BP’s shareholders — most of whom are widows and pensioners. He can do it anyway because the situation is urgent and a crisis.”
The Constitution makes no exceptions about limiting the President’s powers if he deems an event a crisis. The Constitution is a document of enumerated and limited powers for each of the three branches and for the federal government itself. Nowhere does it say, “However, if the President says it’s a crisis, he can do anything he pleases and this document means nothing.”
The whole point of the Constitution is that it is in control no matter how dire the situation. The fact that Mr. Obama does not recognize this, and that when one lone Congressman points it out he gets spit on by his colleagues, is deeply frightening. The truth that the media almost never calls him on it is even more worrisome.
5.) I get a particularly sick feeling when I see the media talking about how BP and the oil spill is killing precious marine life and rare animal life in the wetlands.
President Obama is the most anti-preservationist President in the postwar world. His administration is the first ever not to sign up for strict anti-whaling laws on a worldwide basis. His administration has refused to join with almost every other civilized nation to require Japan and Norway to stop killing whales. His administration is the first ever not to get behind the worldwide effort to ban the trade in ivory and thereby stop the slaughter of elephants in Africa.
Because of Mr. Obama’s explicit contempt for these noble and endangered creatures, African elephants and whales worldwide will be slaughtered almost to the point of extinction. When they are gone, will we remember that their precious blood is on his hands?
If Mr. Obama is so concerned about pelicans and seagulls and beautiful creatures of the wild, will he commit to using his mighty powers to do what every other postwar President has done and pledge to stop the killers of whales and African elephants? Of course not, because he will never stand up to African dictators and Japanese ultra-rightists. He will only bully oil companies who do not fight back.
This man is showing more of who he is day by day and it is a disturbing vision. This is less than two years into his administration. It is later than any dare think.
About the Author
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (110) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ben Stein
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/22/elephants-and-the-obama-questi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- A President Loses His Power
- What’s in a Name?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.22.10 @ 7:13AM
It's becoming more and more obvious that he's not the President of the USA but an ideologue in search of affirmation.
It's amazing how the media ignores his lies, embraces his hypocrisies and applauds his failure.
It indicates that the media is full of dreamy eyed ideologues also, and that's precisely why many news outlets are failing.
As far as President Obama he is the ultimate megalomaniac, all wrapped up in himself, and could care less about the American public, in particular those at the bottom of the feeding scale.
To him, the middle to lower classes are a means to an end, and if their beaches are full of oil, so much the better.
As long as the oil doesn't hit a golf course, a teleprompter or a basketball court, all is well in Obama's world.
Alan Brooks| 6.22.10 @ 4:23PM
"literally the only people on the planet who have even a clue about how to deal with the crisis, shouldn't he act nice to them instead of humiliating them?"
If he did he would be accused of collusion. So perhaps he will lose in '12, his enemies will find a way to destroy him as Nixon's enemies destroyed Nixon.
Alan Brooks| 6.22.10 @ 4:54PM
... you-all are like Palin, you are a great deal tougher & meaner than many think you are.
cgpb| 6.22.10 @ 8:44PM
Bravo. You described his persona magnificently. This is all an ego trip for him, and it seems he's a proficient Macchiavello's disciple
J Thomas| 6.22.10 @ 9:41PM
You are right he is not the President of the USA.
Obama himself has claimed that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which reads: Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In the Supreme Court Case--Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS--Justice Ginsberg made the following statements ... affirming that the world recognizes "birthrights" of the Father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright.
British Subject are simply not eligible for President it's indisputable.
Nick| 6.22.10 @ 11:32PM
J Thomas,
I dispute it.
You Betcha| 6.23.10 @ 12:17AM
Yeah like gravity doofus
Who cares what you say traitors will hang!
Anthony| 6.24.10 @ 2:51AM
Nick, saying "I dispute it" is not exactly what a person can legitimately call a "counter argument". You might as well say "you are wrong becuase I am right, but I am not going to tell you why I am right". Please try to post intelligent comments.
Dave| 6.24.10 @ 6:55PM
@Anthony: "Nick ... please try to post intelligent comments."
Anthony, how about some compassion for the poor Leftist's disability handicap?
Nick| 6.24.10 @ 9:38PM
Anthony,
I always post intelligent comments.
I try not to waste my time with asinine assertions.
But, I am right, because O'Bama's mother was an American citizen. That means President Dither is an American citizen.
Just like I am an American citizen, because my dad is, even though my late mother was a Canadian citizen.
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Why is he eligible to be president?
tinkabell| 6.25.10 @ 11:50AM
Nick, even though I voted for Mc Cain...I wasn't thrilled about it. I would have preferred someone else...that said...
McCain was qualified because BOTH his parents are/were American citizens, stationed while in the military on an American Military base in an American protected territory. Would you consider children of soldiers to not be citizens?
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 12:22PM
Tinkabell,
I, too, was not thrilled to vote for McLame.
I think you misunderstood my point. I know why McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen, and therefore eligible to be president.
Anyone who has one parent who is a U.S. citizen, is a natural born citizen, no matter where in the world they were born.
So, yes, I consider all children of U.S. soldiers to be citizens.
Charles Martel| 6.26.10 @ 12:00AM
That's not even true today, much less when Barry was born in 1961. You might want to familiarize yourself with Title VIII US Code Section 1401, wherein you will find that as currently amended, someone is a US citizen at birth if one of his parents is a US citizen AND that parent has resided in the United States for a total of five years, at least two of which are after attaining the age of 14.
Back in 1961, that parent must have resided in the United States for a total of ten years, at least five of which had to be after attaining the age of 14. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was only 18 when she birthed the little snot. Oops.
It all hinges on that Mombasa birth certificate and the mere registration of his birth in his parents' then-residence upon their triumphant return with Baby Barry.
(By the way, that same section conferred US citizenship at birth to John S. McCain III since both of his parents were US citizens.)
+++
Applebye | 6.22.10 @ 7:21AM
Obama is very much like the Dotcom Kids who vaccuumed up venture capital and spent it on building Campuses and tarting up their offices, and never twigged that a company has to produce something in order to make money.
He thought all you had to do was put up a good front and talk a good game, and somehow The Man would keep the wheels turning.
He is a college sophomore trusted with the keys to the house and the Ferrari and the cigarette boat while Mom and Dad are in France...and now he is beginning to realize that there is going to be an accounting and he is manufacturing excuses and pointing fingers and using up all the goodies as quickly as he can -- yes he will be in big trouble, but what fun he will have had until the folks come home....
Mimi| 6.22.10 @ 7:38AM
APPLEBYE: Ha Ha Ha you got it...College sophmore..The best.. laugh. You've made my day!!!
Bob| 6.22.10 @ 1:32PM
I take offense at that statement. Even us college sophomores understand more about accountability and responsibility than Obama does
bmw ops | 6.22.10 @ 10:34PM
Obama wants this to continue and become the worst environmental disaster in history - that will stick the knife in the back of the oil business unlike anything else he can do. No more drilling in waters of the United States, and no more drilling on land because we cannot prevent these disasters.
Jennifer| 6.25.10 @ 10:33PM
No he wants you to join them in the new bubble party
do your own DD of who the major carbon traders are in Europe and the world...then cross reference them with the Oil Spill group
Japans Mitsui , Anadarko, Cameron International, Transocean, Halliburton ,Hyundai Heavy Industries , Boots & Coots, Schlumberger
Tom Shire| 6.26.10 @ 1:22AM
"Obama wants this to continue..."?!?!
Since BP is doing what it can to stop the leak, and Obama is powerless to do much more (besides order BP to drill a second relief well as a backup in case the first one fails in some way), shouldn't the question be 'do WE want drilling to continue?'
The vile and unproductive hatred I've been reading on this thread displays an underside to the American character that makes me recoil in horror and shame.
Besides Ben Stein's concern that BP's feelings might be hurt, and his shedding of crocodile tears for whales and elephants (Is he equally concerned about the Spotted Owl and other endangered species in our own country?), I don't see any constructive suggestions for dealing with the current spill or those we may face in the future.
I used to expect more from Stein than nonsensical fear mongering (Seriously, Stein thinks negotiating with BP to create a $20B restitution fund is unconstitutional?!), but my expectations sink lower and lower with every article of his that I read.
If BP were smart, they would say something like, 'President Obama wanted a $20B fund, but we decided to make it $25B.'
But apparently if it were left to Republicans, all the small business owners on the Gulf coast would have to wait years for compensation as lawsuits made their way through the nation's courts. First, of course, responsibility for the disaster would have to be apportioned properly (Cameron? Transocean? BP? Halliburton?), and that alone would take who knows how long. Then liability would be litigated (or is it the other way around?).
Finally, damage awards would be reduced by our conservative Supreme Court just like they did for Exxon 10 years after their Valdez spill.
Meanwhile, people's livelihoods have gone by the wayside, and the entire economy of the Gulf is crippled. But no matter, conservatives say. Let nature take its course. Be polite to BP and don't make waves.
Oh, and above all, criticize Obama for anything and everything. "Obama wants this to continue," wrote 'bmw ops.'
As I said before, 'vile, horrific, and shameful' are just a few of the descriptors that come to mind when I read so many comments on this thread. You have to be pretty far gone to believe that Obama wants the spill to continue, but something tells me The American Spectator is designed to cater to just such a person.
How sad.
master-librarian577| 7.16.10 @ 9:19PM
to tom shire ,reply our you a spokesperson paid by ob. or someone else,do you really read facts ,you are showing your partiallism,and ignorance.read ,so simple,even you can understand.obama had the authority to accept allkinds of helps 3 days later,and did nothing.he with his power is resposible way beyond bp oil.i dont know what people who were bad in past he reminds you of ,for me there are several.stop being naive.obama is bad for america ,and so ourmany of his policies.
oraclelady| 8.3.10 @ 7:51PM
If you do a little bit of research you'll know that the oregon spotted owl was actually being killed by another ANIMAL, not man! The whales and elephants are not being killed by animals, but by men! And our "president" will not help to stop this?
And on top of that, everyone else is right, he had offers of help to clean up the oil but turned it down. And he isn't "negotiating" with BP. He is extorting! And last I checked, that actually is illegal, no matter who you are.
Mimi| 6.22.10 @ 7:28AM
Thanks Ben ! More outage, God... Is it purposeful? This 20 bil thing.....Did he ever consider the aftermath of this " Ends at any means" idea? He has no formalized thinking...meaning NO ability to analize, or have logical thinking. The oath of office has GREAT meaning and it must be upheld and we citizens must demand it. We live now in an age of instant news... and most flub-ups are reported. So.... the pols should study-up on the CONSTITUTION....Except Joe Barton... he gets it!
Brian Mc| 6.22.10 @ 7:32AM
Silly me...I thought I was terrified when the supposed health care reform was shoved upon us.
Please, dear God, help us stop this madness and continue to bless America.
Beth | 6.23.10 @ 10:46PM
AMEN!
Melvin| 6.22.10 @ 7:34AM
All of this is true, but in the event that the sitting President is a complete imbecile, the other three branches of the government through the Constitution are supposed to bring balance so that the Country is not swung wildly to the Left or Right, but as we can see this is not the case.
I'm not going to over the minutia of the reasons why the other branches are broken because we already know why, but the key is the last hope for the Republic lies with the people in when all else is broken.
But the larger question is, will the citizens of the United States have the desire and courage to do so. Or have we been bought off just like Legislative Branch?
Every person has their price and maybe the American people have met theirs, while they walk away counting their money or I should say, some else's. Maybe there is a thief in all of us huh?
KyMouse| 6.22.10 @ 1:52PM
Melvin, when I was in school, I was taught that we have three branches of government so that they can provide "checks and balances" on each other's power. Is anybody seeing much of that happening, especially with the executive branch? I wish I did.
Marek| 6.22.10 @ 3:32PM
It's not just the executive branch that worries me. What happened to the judiciary that was inserting itself in every aspect of our lives but now lets Obama ignore things like settled bankruptcy law in the case of the auto company bond holders. Maybe Republicans or conservatives don't really know how to use the courts. Why isn't the One being challenged by BP shareholders on the escrow shakedown? It's their money. The first ray of hope I've seen is Judge Feldman's refusal to enforce Obama's drilling ban.
cgpb| 6.22.10 @ 9:04PM
Marek
Unfortunately, the majority of judges in this country are liberals. Even more, I would daresay, that the majority of lawyers are liberal in nature.
Blame this on the universities, which, with exceptions, have way too much "liberal thinkers" on teaching positions.
Tom Shire| 6.26.10 @ 12:36AM
I don't know about "all" judges, but the reality is that conservative judges control the federal judiciary...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/.....-uspo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/us/29judges.html
Funny how conservatives frequently portray themselves as either victims or underdogs, while the exact opposite is the reality.
Stan Redmond| 6.23.10 @ 11:00AM
How will BP shareholders afford the lawyers? Obama has an endless supply of tax dollars and the printing presses to fight any lawsuits perpetually. Now that Obama has his hands on a 20 billion dollar slush fund for his re-eleection campaign he will NOT let that go.
Also Obama has the media and the idiots tha voted for him in his pocket. They will be destroyed and humiliated a-la Alinsky. What old pensioner is going to stand up on the world stage and be the face of one who's "killing the turtles and pelicans." Even the republicans drove the Obama bus over Joe Barton.
Of course this "seizure" is totally unconsititutional (4th, 5th, amendments) but when has that stopped the government? There will be no lawsuit unfortunately.
Indy Voter| 6.23.10 @ 4:58PM
Yep, I learned those same lessons and share your concerns.
Rumors are flying about issuing an Executive Order to grant anmesty...Michelle Malkin is one who picked up the story. Please call your senators ASAP...
http://michellemalkin.com/2010.....ive-order/
It must be a pretty strong rumor for Sen. Hatch to issue a letter, where's the media? zzz
Grassley and Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., signed a letter to the President June 21, 2010
http://hatch.senate.gov/public.....b26b437781
Angel68| 6.24.10 @ 3:32PM
Obo did this along with the help of BP. He wants the gulf states to die in poverty, that is why he is doing everything he can to keep us from fighting it. If he succeeds in his moratorium of 6 months it will kill the gulf states. That would in effect put more people on welfare which is what he wants. He does not care that the oil is killing animals and marine life. He also sent $2 billion to the Brazil oil company (BP) who is drilling an oil well 14,000 feet deep.
Tom| 6.22.10 @ 7:41AM
While Obama has not provided clear and adult leadership on the Gulf spill he has requested help from around the world. It was not timely but he has at least finally done so.
Angel68| 6.24.10 @ 3:35PM
When did he ask for help? I haven't heard of any help. He has been offered help from numerous other nations and has turned it down flat!
Whit| 6.24.10 @ 11:40PM
Yes, well after the damage has been done but not in the first few days when we could have captured the leak and brought the oil to the surface, preventing the fouling of the Gulf. We had the technology to do this but no one in authority to call on that technology. Obama backed off and let BP bumble trying to close of the well when they should have concentrated first on controlling the leak. The truth of what I say will come to the surface in due time and, hopefully, in the near future. Obama had no knowledge of what questions needed to be asked, where and how to find the answers and what technologies to use to implement those answers. Neither did the BP engineers because those answers were outside their engineering expertize. Like a lot of specialists they can be completely lost outside their specialty but very good within their specialty. Obama never used the tools he had available.
Bill| 6.22.10 @ 8:00AM
B.O. has failed to uphold his oath of office in many areas. Arizona and securing the borders being just one. It is time to impeach him and bring to justice the others in his administration who have undermined our constitution and betrayed this country.
Watcher| 6.22.10 @ 4:47PM
today we hear from numbers usa that there is a plan in the bo administration to have the president make all illegals legal by exective writ.
by nov elections, we wont be a free people any more and I am begining to believe the elections will never take place. God help us.
Rmm| 6.22.10 @ 8:52AM
I'm no fan of Hillary, but the woman had the manchild pegged during the campaign. Our ojt President has come to fruition and things are getting ugly. Does Obaman have another side to him, to off-set his inherent cronyism? Or is this all we get ?
Boston12GS| 6.22.10 @ 9:07AM
I guess now we know the answer to Hillary's rhetorical question: "When the phone rings at 3AM, is Obama the person you want answering?"
Of course, in the case of the oil, Obama didn't bother picking up the phone for many weeks--it just rang, and rang, and rang.
Angel68| 6.24.10 @ 3:38PM
Hillary is just as bad as he is. I don't think he will be able to legalize the illegals by executive order. He might issue one but it doesn't mean we are going to let him get away with it.
Bill| 6.22.10 @ 9:08AM
Stalin's prosecutor in the show trials was Vyshinsky, not Molotov.
Jeffry Pages| 6.22.10 @ 9:46AM
There are a number of charges that should be brought against Bush, Cheney and BP. This disaster is a result of Bush and Cheney kissing up to their rich oil buddies. Accordingly, we have the worst disaster in history! President Obama has done a better job with this oil disaster than anyone else could have. Just wait, he will plug the hole. Right now he has the best minds in the world working on the issue of filling in the hole. No doubt it will be solved soon. As to Bush and Cheney going into the dock with BP, I think it's only a matter of time. The PEOPLE are getting sick and tired of the crimes and atrocities BC and BP have perpetrated over the years. Prison is too good for them all!
PJ| 6.22.10 @ 10:49AM
After reading this post, I have to admit, the Savage is correct. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Tom in Michigan| 6.22.10 @ 11:00AM
Lest we begin wax to nostalgic for the lost Hillary Clinton Presidency; I suggest you review the stunning incompetence she has shown as Secretary of State.
Tom in Michigan| 6.22.10 @ 11:03AM
Sorry. I meant this as a reply to RMM and Boston10GS but, as long as I'm here - I nominate Pages for the "Original Thought of the Day" award. To whit: "It's Bush's Fault!"
Stephanie| 6.22.10 @ 11:08AM
Oh Jeffery, please. Give the Bush/Cheney bashing a rest. It is SOOOO tiresome.
Nick| 6.22.10 @ 12:37PM
You forgot HALLIBURTON!
Are you the "little Jeffry" that Bill Cosby shared a flight with and used in his stand-up act in the film "Bill Cosby: Himself?"
If so, I, like your mother did, would like to punch your father right in the mouth!
ShortNSweet| 6.22.10 @ 1:48PM
Here's an idea!!! Plug the hole with the man himself! He is that awesome! huuuuh!
ricky| 6.22.10 @ 7:23PM
Theres another hole that needs to get plugged, its the one between your ears kool aid drinker!
Christopher Holland| 6.23.10 @ 12:56AM
I thought Bush left the White House after the 2008 election and Obama was the President. Did I miss something here - it was in all the papers, I saw it on TV.
Solipslip| 6.23.10 @ 2:22PM
Jeffry-
Great satire! You sound just like a lib!
James| 6.24.10 @ 8:18AM
Jeffry, the clown prince has bungled this from the beginning as he has botched everything he has touched in the last 18 months. He is the reason this is a disaster of historical precedent not Bush or Cheney who have been out of office for 18 months. Eventually you liberal types are going to have to attach Obama's policies and the ill effects that are produced by them on the right person...Obama. Until then your argument just sounds sad and ill informed.
master_librarian 577| 7.16.10 @ 10:07PM
this was along time after bush,and chany were gone ,ob. was,and is responsible ,who paid him to act so irresponsible.who paid you to support the distraction,and turn people from the truth,Ilove my country,for ob to not immediately have the oil cleaned up,is inexcusable .f,hhuman being f,president f,one of perhaps the 5 sorriest presidents in the united states history,and if you dont know that,you probably lack wisdom .the fear of GOD,JESUS FATHERis the beginning of wisdom.
PittDave| 6.22.10 @ 9:54AM
Thanks Mr. Stein! Years ago I witnessed the destruction brought about by the tactics of Saul Alinsky on a much smaller scale, and ever since the first time I heard Mr. Obama speak, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I hear his name. Trouble is, I don't know what I can DO to address the issue. The GOP, Supreme Court, and mainstream media have been paralyzed by BHO's tactics. Is there anything that the average American can do?
Dustoff| 6.22.10 @ 9:56AM
Jeffry Pages
If so, why did BP give all that money to O-bummer?
greasing the skids maybe?
Joe D| 6.22.10 @ 10:30AM
Jeffry Pages - ARE YOU BRAIN DEAD??? BP is not An American Oil company and therefore a friend of Bush & Cheney. By the way, the accident happen on Obama's watch with his men giving BP an award and pass. And as for the worst disaster in history, you don't even know your history of oil spills. The other Gulf in the middle east is still worst. And there have been many worst disasters in history, people killed, distruction of property etc. Please stop drinking the koolaid on CNN.
And the man in the White House is clearly the worst disaster in history.
ShortNSweet| 6.22.10 @ 2:01PM
You speak the truth. Par for the course: the left can always find a way to blame it on someone else...it's never there fault even when they are caught standing there holding the bag!
Ray| 6.22.10 @ 10:51AM
I have a few thoughts on this "spill" as well, and they are in response to the belief that this is an impending ecological disaster that will have dire consequences for decades, the worst disaster of all time, as I have hear some people declare.
Contrary to the belief that this is going to kill the wildlife in the gulf, I belief that this oil will actually promote wildlife in the gulf, especially in the wetlands. You see, oil is a carbon based compound, one that is biodegrade, and the process of bio-degradation, and the byproduct that this degradation creates, is actually beneficial to life, especially plant life.
The oil, one the process of bio-degradation (also known as "composting") begins to break down the long hydrocarbon chains into shorter compounds, will act as a fertilizer, one that will promote the growth of plant life, plant life that will feed animals. Yes, there will be some damages because of the volume of oil and the volatile compounds within that oil, but this is a short lived problem that will quickly disappear.
Yes, there are harmful volatile compounds in oil, but these evaporate easily in warm environments (unlike what happened in Alaska) and the warm environment that this oil will be experiencing will cause those volatile compounds to quickly evaporate and dissipated.
The residue that will remain is mostly hydrocarbon, a perfect "food" for the bacteria in warm, moist environments as the heat, combined with the "composting" effects of bacteria, will cause the formation of carbohydrates, also known as, yes, you guessed it, sugars, starches, and other "plant" compounds. What was once carbohydrates will return to carbohydrates, thanks to the warm, wet environment of the Gulf and the natural bacteria in the area that turns hydrocarbons into carbohydrates.
Once the carbohydrates form, other bacteria will begin to break them down into CO2 and, yes, you guessed it, water vapor, while releasing the nitrogen, potassium, and other nutrients that is naturally found in oil, a plant-derived substance.
So, instead of destroying the plant life in the Gulf, as most people assume, and disrupting the food chain. the oil will, within a mater of a year or two, become the very fertilizers that will assist the growth of plant life, thus replacing any plant life the oil "killed" before it started to break down. This increasing vegetation will become food for herbivores, thus increasing their population, which will, in turn , become for an increasing number of carnivores who feed on the "grazers."
The same thing will happen in the waters of the gulf itself. The only problem there is the possibility of an algae explosion causing a massive fish "die off," but, since the gulf experiences a yearly current flow that "flushes" out the gulf with fresh, clean waters of the Atlantic ocean, this will, most likely, not occur.
So, instead of being the worst ecological disaster of all time, as some have claimed, this could quickly be the biggest ecological boost that the golf coast has ever experienced within the last ten thousand years!
Now, I wouldn't recommend that we have a "blow out" every year or so as that would be preposterous, but this "crisis" could very well be highly beneficial in just a few short years.
Sarah| 6.22.10 @ 11:58AM
Finally! Common sense! This is not the HUGE ECOLOGICAL DISASTER that we think it is. The earth takes care of oil in its own way. After all, this is pure, unrefined oil - as NATURAL as it can BE! If nature can't deal with itself, then we are in more trouble than we think.
Unfortunately, the groupthink says that it's so very, very awful and so it is.
That being said, Obama's "dictate" to BP is illegal, unconstitutional, and should lead to his immediate impeachment. The unmitigated gall of this arrogant ass is unreal.
Tom| 6.22.10 @ 1:04PM
While it would be nice if Ray's scenario plays out he gives no evidence that it ever has anywhere else in the world. And whether petroleum is natural or not is rather meaningless to whether it is harmful or not. Uranium and mercury are natural and I am pretty sure it would be a bad idea to bathe the Gulf coast in either of those substances.
PolishKnight| 6.22.10 @ 3:09PM
Uranium is found in NATURE in the form of an ore in low concentrations. It's highly expensive to process hence the reason why not every country has nukes yet.
Mercury is also found largely as an ore or released as a by-product of other natural actions (such as burning coal which contains a small amount of mercury.)
Tom| 6.22.10 @ 6:19PM
Your point? Oil is not found in the quantities currently polluting the Gulf without some sort of intervention. Whether it is a natural, opposed to man made, substance is really meaningless to the discussion. What is important is the severity of impact on the environment, the length of time before the environment heals itself, and the cost of containing and cleaning up the petroleum. Blithely saying the substance is natural - existing in or formed by nature - so nature should be able to deal with it is lazy thinking.
Ray| 6.23.10 @ 11:50AM
"Blithely saying the substance is natural - existing in or formed by nature - so nature should be able to deal with it is lazy thinking. "
How's being lazy in their thinking process here, Us or you? Take a good look that the La Brea tar pits sometime and tell me, is the natural oil that is "leaking" to the surface there devastating the environment? No, it isn't, Vegetation grows right up to the edge of the "pit"" itself. And that oil, that "tar" has been "leaking" into the "pit" for hundreds of thousands of years! If oil is supposed to be so toxic that it kills everything that comes in contact to it, as people believe, then why isn't all the vegetation dead for hundreds of fee around the pit? The soil for hundreds of feet around the pit is saturated with oil, so everything within that zone should be dead, correct? Well, just Google the pits and look for yourself. Where' the devastation to the environment that oil should be causing?
Ray| 6.23.10 @ 11:36AM
You want "evidence?" Ok I'll give you evidence:
Exxon Valdez. Where's the massive fish die off that was supposed to occur there because of that huge spill? Where's the devastation to the bird and mammal populations that were supposed to occur because of the all the fish dying there? It never happened! Yes, we had a lot of video of oil covered birds and things for a few months, but the massive devastation that was predicted never occurred. As a matter of fact, the fish population exploded two years after the spill occurred. The same with the bird and mammal populations.
The Persian Gulf in 1970's. The worlds largest oil spill occurred there. Did it kill the Persian Gulf, as predicted? Did that spill decimate the fish population and destroy the Gulf's fishing industry as expected? No, just the opposite occurred. The fish population exploded within two years after that spill and the fishing industry actually grew for decades.
So, where the evidence that this oil will actually become the largest disaster ever? Well, so far, there isn't any! Anecdotal evidence suggest that just the opposite will occur!
Whit| 6.25.10 @ 12:17AM
Ray you make a good argument. Too much fertilizer as in an 8-8-8 formula will kill vegetation yet in the proper amounts make it grow abundantly. Several years ago in South Louisiana, oil pollution from the off shore rigs was killing vegetation and causing other problems and when it was realized what was happening there were efforts to clean the mess up. Today it is cleaned up and, I believe, also supports your contention. Now what is this going to do for the global warming crowd that has no confidence in Nature?
Me? I have no confidence in environmentalists.
kel| 6.24.10 @ 1:57AM
Not a disaster?
Tell that to the relatives of those who died because of this.
Tell that to the people losing their businesses because of this, but who can't prove it to BP.
I'm not even going to mention the hundreds of thousands of animals who are suffering horrible deaths this minute because of this band of clowns.
OK, it's not a "Huge Ecological Disaster". Whatever. It's nice to be able to say that, a thousand miles away from what is going down.
Ray| 6.24.10 @ 3:32PM
Yes, it's a disaster to the family of the people how died and I don't mean to belittle their loss as any loss of life is a tragedy, but let's be realistic, how many people died ? 11, so far. We had more than that when a commercial jet crashed in the swamps of Florida, yet I haven;t heard anyone ever describe that as a national disaster. This is being portrayed as the biggest disaster in American history, but there's no evidence to support that.
"I'm not even going to mention the hundreds of thousands of animals who are suffering horrible deaths this minute because of this band of clowns."
WHAT "hundreds of thousand animals?" Somme a single picture of those dead animals! So far, NONE have been produced! With all of the day to day coverage that this is receiving, you'd at least thing that a single photograph of those "hundreds of thousands" dead animals could be produced! But where are they?
"Tell that to the people losing their businesses because of this, but who can't prove it to BP. "
BP isn't causing people to lose their business, their own FEAR is.! That fear is being magnified by people just like yourself who insist without any real evidence, that this is a huge disaster that is decimating the wildlife and killing larges groups of people!
Stop fomenting that fear, for YOU are part of the reason that people who are continuing to successfully fish the waters despite the supposed damage this "disaster" was supposed to create can not sell their products any more! It is this lack of understanding of the minimal effect of this spill on the actual environment that is the biggest detriment to the business.
Nick| 6.22.10 @ 12:09PM
Kudos to Ray and Sarah!
Excellent points!
Mark| 6.24.10 @ 11:01PM
Ray, I think you're right. I propose deliberately depositing huge amounts of oil on the shores around the world to replenish and renew our earth. Perhaps you should write the president with this idea. You could be our next Nobel prize winner.
Mark| 6.24.10 @ 11:03PM
PS Ray, I almost forgot. You're an ignoramus.
Loki| 6.22.10 @ 11:07AM
Jeffry Pages,
LOL! Of course it's Bush's fault, and you sound like a broken record. If you want someone to actually see your side, it's probably best if you have some sort of logical, adult reasoning for your complete disdain for Bush and your unyielding and, might I add, blind love for Obama. This child's game you're playing is laughable and is dismissed as quickly as it is read. If you’re saying it to ruffle feathers it makes your comments even more worthless and childlike, but if you’re actually trying to inject a different perspective into the conversation, please take my advice and don’t just regurgitate the same old tired crap.
Nick| 6.22.10 @ 12:01PM
Five days ago, while President Dither was extorting $20 billion from BP, Bloomberg reported that the MMS was notified, back 0n February 13th, that there were cracks and leaks around the Deep Horizon well:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....-show.html
O'Bama, and the other goons in his regime, are in cahoots with BP to try and cover up their misdeeds and law breaking.
Come next January, when the Republicans retake the Congress, impeachment hearings should begin right away.
JIM WHITTAKER, Hemet, CA| 6.22.10 @ 12:05PM
"Did you plug the hole-in-one yet, Daddy?"
R Martin| 6.22.10 @ 12:50PM
Ben, Obama's never going to support the whaling ban. He knows that whales will be our only source of oil after he shuts down the petroleum industry.
JJ| 6.22.10 @ 1:16PM
It's the CLEAN-UP stupid !!
Cleaning up the oil should have been an American call to arms! Use all technology, use anything ... even if we have to row out there and use buckets -- just get the damn oil out of the damn water.
But no. Obama would rather distract the media with BP prosecution. And the media takes the bait.
There's a whole ocean of oil down there -- and its headed for the beaches! It will be washing on shore for months and years to come. The currents will take it to places you (and Obama's experts) never thought of.
And the thought of a massive cleanup RIGHT NOW has not occured to Anderson Cooper, Barak Obama or P. Diddy.
Even the conservative media is lost in BP distraction.
Simply put, the Interior Department gave the green light for BP to drill a mile down without proper safety precautions and worst-case scenario plans. When warning signals flared BP pushed on recklessly and the Interior Department did not put up the stop sign. Gross human error/negligence caused this disaster -- a real life "man-caused" disaster. That was an Obama appointee who failed to stop BP. Guilty. Criminal.
Yet the media, for the most part, has played it like it was an accident -- no damn way.
Bobby Jindal is the only guy who seems to get it -- we should be brainstorming about how to suck up the oil. We should be hiring federal workers to get out there and do something, ... anything.
Where is the sense of urgency?
This is a fraud on the American public. Media, government and corporate fraud.
Janelle| 6.24.10 @ 1:09PM
There are others. Senator Lemieux from Fl. asked simply why are there only 20 out of the 2000 available oil skimmers deployed in the area? The answer: They may be needed elsewhere if there is another spill.
Whit| 6.25.10 @ 12:47AM
Why are so many missing the point that there would be no deep water drilling if the oil wasn't there. We are finding large supplies of oil under deep water and we are developing the technology to get it. Must be greed that is driving this exploration because of the technical difficulties no one would do just for the fun of it. If there were no market for oil there would be no drilling for oil and it there was no income from the sale of oil there would be no supply of oil. Somewhere along the line we have been brainwashed to think that private property and increase (profit) are both wrong and illegal. We need to disabuse ourselves of such silly notions. Commerce depends both on a demand for a product or service that is paid for in a satisfactory manner be it trade or cash. When we disregard this fundamental truth we get into serious trouble.
Anthony| 6.22.10 @ 1:29PM
Wow Ben, every once and a while, you actually hit a grand slam. Touche pal.
Your next observation should be about the mealy mouth, utterly gutless Republican Party, that cannot manage to inform the American people of the danger this president presents.
What is so g...damn difficult in telling the American people that while BP is at fault, our Constitutional system of government has more than a 200+ year history in dealing with these things, and that a president has no such power under the Constitution to demand this ILLEGAL SLUSH FUND. We are not a dictatorhip yet.
JJ is right, it's the CLEAN UP STUPID!!!
PolishKnight| 6.22.10 @ 3:03PM
I have to quibble with Ben's summation of Japanese whaling policies as "ultra rightist". This lumps all right wing policies together. In many countries, such as Britain, their "right" is about on the same level as Bill Clinton.
Tim*| 6.22.10 @ 6:45PM
BP & Enron created Cap & Trade in the mid 90's.
Obama is attempting to sneaky-reward his campaign donor buddies BP by passing Cap & Trade .
DAY 64 !
President Tarballs Is Being Exposed .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
133 Days to November 2nd.
Pat Spooner| 6.22.10 @ 7:58PM
Ben, in response to your #1, Obama wants this to continue and become the worst environmental disaster in history - that will stick the knife in the back of the oil business unlike anything else he can do. No more drilling in waters of the United States, and no more drilling on land because we cannot prevent these disasters. What a great day for him and his environmental wacko buddies!
Tyler S.| 6.23.10 @ 9:04PM
I seriously doubt this to be the case. Whatever Obama may or may not wish, there is simply no feasible alternative to oil readily available, so the killing blow would be a bit suicidal at present. Meanwhile, one of thew most delicate and diverse ecosystems in the country is getting wrecked, which us environmental whackos are generally against. Therefore this is really lose lose for Obama, he won't be able to do too much about the oil industry, which will piss off his political supporters, and he will also appear fairly ineffectual in the face of a national disaster, which will piss off ... well ... everyone. I would bet he's not loving life right now.
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 9:24PM
Chicago-style shakedown artist. No due process. BP must think that this limits their liability. Whatever the liability is, that's what it is: zero, a million, a billion, a trillion.
Tyler S.| 6.23.10 @ 9:08PM
It's a pointless PR move which benefits both parties. Of course BPs liability will be whatever it is, and the escrow fund is essentailly meaningless. They're more than big enough to pay it and survive, son there's not really any worry the money won't be there if this escrow account isn't formed. This lets Obama look like he's doing something and BP look like they're acknowledging the seriousness of the situation. I doubt there was any arm twisting involved by either party.
Dan F| 6.23.10 @ 3:09PM
I'm sure that no one is as sorry as the people at BP for this tragedy. Five have died and more injured. We must keep in mind that there has been no inquiry into the accident, and consequentially no apportionment of guilt for any violation of law.
Northern Rebel| 6.23.10 @ 3:59PM
Rahmbo said,"Never let a crisis go to waste!"
Do you realize how much time is being wasted on this subject, while "President" Anti-Christ moves on with cap and tax, the perversion of our court system, the continuation of HIS recession, and the stripping of money from the private sector?
NOBODY!
Not Hitler, not FDR. not Stalin, not Napolean, nor Meyer Lansky, Gambino, Trafficante, or any organized crime figures of the twentieth century, could have imagined one skinny little boy-man that can't even throw like a man, would be able to produce so much deliberate chaos, in such a short period of time.
The little dancing fool from N.Korea must be going insane with envy, and jealousy!
SIRJASON | 6.23.10 @ 5:07PM
All these professional, political, parasites need do is grow some brass ovaries or brass gonads or brass cajones, standup in the well of the House and Senate and scream..."I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"
By what authority Sir, do you provide the people, the Senate and the House that has allowed you, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., to occupy the Oval Office?
Elizabeth| 6.23.10 @ 7:01PM
Ben, I am sorry the whales/elephants suffer under this president. But more horrifying is his cold, heartless, evil stance on abortion. That babies, born alive, surviving the evil of abortion would be left to die in a laundry room. If our country stands for that, indeed, elects a man that worked to keep that horror in place, how can we expect God's blessing.
Tyler S.| 6.23.10 @ 8:58PM
In fairsness, they didn't offer to send us the ships, the offered to rent them to us (and none too cheaply), which Obama declined because he wanted BP to pay for the clean up rather than the federal government. I would have thought you small government types would be in favor of the government not spending money when they can get the company responsible to do so. To spend federal money would be essentially a bail out of BP.
Tyler S.| 6.23.10 @ 9:11PM
Oh, hey! I just realized who authored this ... let's call it and article. Whatup, Ben Stein? I'm a big fan! Not of the positions, of course, by I loved the show "Win Ben Stein's Money." I had no Idea you contributed to this rag. Cheers, ya crazy bastard!
Tom P| 6.24.10 @ 1:04PM
When will some grown ups arrest these kooks and toss their crooked a**es in jail.
cmm912| 6.24.10 @ 1:11PM
What an excellent editorial. But the truths that Ben Stein lays before us are both frightening and sad. And we have 2-1/2 more years to go. Heaven help us and our precious wildlife.
waterman3| 6.24.10 @ 4:30PM
james madison refused to spend monetary aid for french refugees; i believe he also used the same excuse to refuse aid to widows and orphans.
the lame excuse? the constitution does not provide any justification for such actions. see federalist papers. still doesn't.
why did prohibition (of alcohol) require the 18th amendment to be put in place?
because way back in grampa's time, citizens knew that the constitution did not allow the federal govt to take such actions without some legal basis.
sadly, the education of citizens has fallen by the wayside, and instead the indoctrination of them has gone into high gear.
granted, mr obama is not the first politician to flush the constitution down the toilet, but his chicago political upbringing may make him the worst abuser of it in history.
lincoln suspended habeus corpus, and used federal troops to close down voters who didn't approve of his usurption of power.
when fdr got chastised by the supreme court for his usurption of power, he tried to add enough justices to it to ensure that he had a clear majority who would rubberstamp approval of his abuses.
i'm curious to see where mr obama goes in his power grabs. he has already publicly chastised the supreme court for approving freedom of speech. he is defying the federal judge who found his moratorium to be capricious and ill founded, and now he is wallowing in a petulant frenzy with the state of arizona.
this is the best thing that could have occurred in the united states today...he has cured the american people of their apathy. he has awoken the populist beast, and they will show their righteous indignation at the polls in nov.
one wonders if he will follow mr lincoln's lead, to use federal troops to shut down the polls at bayonet point?
or will he merely use the press to declare himself king?
after all, most of the mainstream press will declare it an emergency if the sheeple do not follow the directions of their shepherd.
only nutty wackjob extremists would break out of the properly directed herd, and go their own way.
it's easy to pick sides. in this corner, we have the obama-nation.
and it's challenger, the indig-nation.
long live the constitution, tattered and battered though it may be.
Mark| 6.24.10 @ 11:17PM
Nice Job waterman3. Very well put on all ends. However, I would augment your statements with the following.
Our Country is here because of our Constitution. Our Constitution IS our Country. Mr. Obama is one of the worst (not the worst) "disrespector" of our Constitution. He doesn't think twice of trampling it.
I think your post fell short of saying: If you don't like our Constitution (our Country), then why don't you get the FCK out.
Paul in Colorado| 6.25.10 @ 12:39PM
It is only a matter of time until this administration's disregard for the rule of law leads to a constitutional crisis, in which Obama will face an order from the Supreme Court. Then we'll know whether America is still a democracy.
waterman3| 6.26.10 @ 4:36PM
all is not lost. in spite of the fact that mr obama has pissed off the citizens of this country enough to earn disapproval ratings from 2/3 of them, he seems intent on the legalization of the 20 million that live in the shadows. shake and bake democrats, ready to show proper gratitude at the polls.
but another point, if i may. 0ver 50%of 18-24 year olds are unemployed, moving back in with mom and pops, even after college.
it is even worse amongst black youths. perhaps if so many illegals did not fill the entry level jobs, that number might drop. if mr obama cared about any job prospects other than his own and his cronies, he might be able to recognise that, but i won't hold my breath.
his labor secretary is fighting to protect the rights of illegals. the only efforts on the part of the administration seems to be to spend taxpayer dollars to buy the votes of the cheapest bidders.
and his allegiance to the all powerful unions? i saw the head economist of the afl-cio call cavuto an asshole for not being the same sort of fawning sycophant the rest of the mainstream media. cavuto kept repeating the question unionboy was ducking and evading. saw it live, fox didn't have time to bleep it.
it's all about plundering the peasants. that would be us. and as soon as the illegals have sold their votes, they will be disdained and taken for granted like the rest of us.
the federal govt, as well as calif, is boycotting arizona.
do we get to return those sentiments on april 15th?
or must the peasants fire up their torches, gather their pitchforks, and storm the castle of the bloodsuckers on the potomac?
trivia question: who is losing money faster- bp spewing oil into the gulf....
or fannie mae and freddie mac?
the other day, during an admittedly marathon tennis match, the national debt went up 1.75 billion.
during a freaking tennis match.......
food for thought.
try not to gag ,folks. it's only a tennis match.
Phineas| 6.27.10 @ 9:01PM
I am sorry to say that what we are seeing in Mr. Stein's comments, the reactions thereto, the rhetoric from the Obamans, Barton, and everyone else seems to be indicative of our political culture.
As an engineer, I can tell you where the focus belongs: SOLVE THE DAMN PROBLEM. Remember that politicians actually benefit from disasters - they can constantly be on the record and on the news in an unimpeachable pose of condemnation and righteousness, the rhetorical I-beams of re-election campaigns.
The one place this is particularly obvious, as Mr. Stein notes, is the announcement criminal investigations of BP. This is great populist rhetoric if you think the populace is stupid; it is so obviously counterproductive that only fools could not see through it. If a BP executive thinks he is facing a criminal indictment, that is going to get his attention, not fixing the spill, and it is BP that has to do so. What are the feds going to do without them - send in the best bureaucrats from Interior to stem the flow with paperclips?
One sentence sums it up for me: QUIT CASHING IN AND SOLVE THE DAMN PROBLEM.
Ronzo| 6.27.10 @ 9:08PM
You said "If your house is on fire, you politely ask the neighbors for help. You don't yell at them and call them names." That is true, but if your neighbor lights your house on fire, do still talk nicely to them, Ben? The bigger question is "Why does anyone read what you have to say?" and "Why would anyone pay you to write this stuff?"
Phineas| 8.9.10 @ 2:32AM
Hey moRon-zo, if your neighbor is the only one who can put the fire out, yelling at them is stupid. Like you.
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:18AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com