Tag Archives: oil spill

Fareed Zakaria Defends Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘What Does the Media Want the President to Do?’

Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday worked overtime trying to defend Barack Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf Coast oil spill while chastising his colleagues in the media for having the nerve to criticize the president. In the opening segment of his “Fareed Zakaria GPS” aired on CNN, Zakaria asked, “Have we all gone crazy?”  He continued, “In dealing with the serious problem involving technical breakdown, engineering malfunctions, environmental fallout, regulatory mishaps, the media has decided to hone in on one central issue above all others: presidential emotion.” With a chyron at the bottom of the screen asking, “What does the media want the President to do,” Zakaria told viewers, “The truth is that what’s happening in the Gulf is a terrible tragedy, but there is very little the federal government can do in the short-term to actually stop the spill” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   FAREED ZAKARIA: Have we all gone crazy? I don’t mean you, I mean us, the media. In dealing with the serious problem involving technical breakdown, engineering malfunctions, environmental fallout, regulatory mishaps, the media has decided to hone in on one central issue above all others: presidential emotion. The overriding need of the hour, we have decided, is not a cleanup plan, not a regulatory overhaul, not a new energy policy, but the image of the president visibly enraged. At this point in the complete segment that aired Sunday, Zakaria showed a clip of a video created by the Huffington Post that included snippets of media coverage asking the president to show more emotion on this subject. For some reason the folks at CNN.com chose to edit out this portion in the video it published Saturday evening. Maybe they didn’t want people to know that Zakaria was channeling the view of one of the most liberal websites in the nation. But I digress:  ZAKARIA: And what exactly is the point of all this? What purpose would be served by having the president scream or cry or whatever it is he’s supposed to do to show emotion? Would it plug the hole? The truth is that what’s happening in the Gulf is a terrible tragedy, but there is very little the federal government can do in the short-term to actually stop the spill. This is either staggering ignorance or shameful dishonesty. After all, there ARE things the federal government could have done from the beginning which would have limited the amount of oil now slamming into the Gulf states and possibly the entire eastern seaboard in the coming months. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been asking the feds for weeks to allow him to do a variety of procedures to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, he’s still waiting for EPA environmental assessment reports. Beyond this, the Obama administration at the early stages of this crisis completely ignored emergency procedures granted the White House by Congress decades ago.   The reality is that America is likely facing its biggest non-war related catastrophe in its history, and the federal government has appeared totally inept at facing the challenge. As a result, Americans are rightfully discouraged by what they’ve seen from this president the past seven weeks and counting, and the idea that Zakaria is trying to minimize this criticism is disgusting:  ZAKARIA: This whole discussion is a terrible example of how the media can trivialize political discussion. The presidency is a serious job, the most serious job in the country. And here we are asking the man to dress the part, to play-act emotions, to give us satisfaction by just doing something even if it’s all phony stuff just designed to give the impression of action. And we’ve managed to succeed. We’ve managed to force the president to cancel his trip to Asia, demean himself by trash-talking about the CEO of British Petroleum, hold lots of pointless meetings and press conferences, have admirals give make-work briefings. The federal government is now consumed with pretending it’s doing something about a situation it actually can’t do much about…But thank goodness the president is now talking about kicking some ass. So what SHOULD the president be doing, Fareed? Nothing? Would you tolerate such inaction if George W. Bush was still in the White House? Would you be defending the president’s lack of action and emotion if there was an “R” after his name? The answers to those questions are certainly “No,” which means that James Carville was quite right when he said about Zakaria on Thursday, “I don’t think that he understands exactly what is going on down here.” That’s putting it nicely, James. 

Visit link:
Fareed Zakaria Defends Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘What Does the Media Want the President to Do?’

Bill Maher: ‘The Oil Industry Creates Jobs – So Does The Kiddie Porn Industry’

Bill Maher on Friday compared Americans working for oil companies to the vermin creating and distributing child pornography. In the “New Rules” segment of his “Real Time” program, the HBO host concluded with a discussion about the “murderous, hateful” oil industry. “You know, it’s Washington gospel that jobs in the private sector are better than government jobs,” said Maher. “But oil jobs are private, and look at the toll this industry takes: cooking the planet; enslaving us to Saudi Arabia; killing animals,” he continued. “Yes, the oil industry creates jobs – so does the kiddie porn industry” (video pending, partial transcript follows):  BILL MAHER: New rule – stop talking about jobs being lost in a murderous, hateful industry like it’s a bad thing. Now, last week I may have hurt a few feelings when my response to the complaint that jobs will be lost in the offshore drilling business was, “Fuck your jobs.” But I meant it. And it goes double for burning coal and chopping down redwoods. Sorry, roughnecks, but eventually you’re going to have to find something else to do. Try building windmills. You know what happens when windmills collapse into the sea? A splash. You know, it’s Washington gospel that jobs in the private sector are better than government jobs. You even hear Democrats saying it. But oil jobs are private, and look at the toll this industry takes: cooking the planet; enslaving us to Saudi Arabia; killing animals. If the government hired away all the 58,000 oil workers who work now in the state of Louisiana, and paid them their same salary to work repairing infrastructure and building solar panels, it would cost us $5.5 billion which the Pentagon loses every day in the couch. Wouldn’t that be worth it? Is working on an oil rig really that great a job anyway? You spend weeks at a time on a floating well in the ocean. Do you want to avoid your family that bad, take up golf. Yes, the oil industry creates jobs – so does the kiddie porn industry. Honestly, how low will this man go?

Follow this link:
Bill Maher: ‘The Oil Industry Creates Jobs – So Does The Kiddie Porn Industry’

BP Executives Spill Coffee, Flip Out (Video)

photo via comedy central The comedy troupe ” Upright Citizens Brigade ” has taken on the BP oil gusher, lampooning the oil giant’s leadership for being out-of-touch, pampered, and clueless. The video shows an executive spilling coffee, which threatens fish (sushi) and laptops. Kevin Costner even makes an appearance in this funny sketch. The spill has been a source for laughs along with tears, with comedians like

Excerpt from:
BP Executives Spill Coffee, Flip Out (Video)

Time Says Oil Spill is Everyone’s Fault But Big Government

The June 21 Time cover article told the sad stories of those affected by the BP oil spill and explored mistakes, mishaps and unfortunate events that have combined to compound the disaster. But in “ The Gulf Disaster: Who’s Asses Need Kicking? ” author Bryan Walsh went ultimately to spoiled American consumers both for refusing to grant government unlimited power over business, and for demanding mobility facilitated by inexpensive fuel. “We accept the business argument that regulation is an evil that isn’t necessary, rather than a necessary evil, and then we’re surprised when a rig blows and disaster ensues,” Walsh tutted. He called the current regulations “toothless” and explained that a current problem is, “the tendency of too many government overseers to get too friendly with the industry they’re supposed to be monitoring.” But it wasn’t just the lack of regulation. Walsh declared that, “And all of us bear responsibility too for depending on and demanding cheap oil underwritten by risky drilling while showing again and again at the ballot box that we wouldn’t support a government that really regulated the industry.” Walsh explained, “Of course, it’s our appetite for gas – cheap gas – that provides the hundreds of millions of dollars oil companies keep spending to drill offshore and the billions they make in profit. We buy gas-guzzling cars, resist the use of public transportation and howl at the ideal of carbon taxes or other measures that would bankroll research into alternative energy sources and make them more competitive once they reach the market.” Anything that needs government subsidy to exist in the marketplace is, by definition, uncompetitive. And the big solutions proposed by environmentalists wouldn’t just inconvenience consumers, they would cripple the U.S. economy. In 2009 Congress attempted to pass Cap-and-Trade , which would have created a trading market while attempting to cap carbon emissions.  The Heritage Foundation found that it would have cost not only a $9.6 billion in GDP loss, but over one million jobs by 2035. During the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama received $71,000 worth of donations from BP. And Walsh did acknowledge that Obama was among those to blame. But he complained that president was “too slow to seize control.”

Excerpt from:
Time Says Oil Spill is Everyone’s Fault But Big Government

Pac-Man Ship Eats Oil Spills (Wakka Wakka Wakka)

As BP’s Gulf oil spill continues to suck, the internet has been bombarded with heartbreaking photos of oil-dipped wildlife and new interpretations of the

Originally posted here:
Pac-Man Ship Eats Oil Spills (Wakka Wakka Wakka)

MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Helen Thomas on ‘Hannity,’ Recent Primaries on ‘Fox & Friends’

If you ask the media, George W. Bush is to blame for everything from the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill to Al and Tipper Gore’s broken marriage. What’s more, the media are insisting, it’s Democrat Hillary Clinton who deserves praise for paving the way for Republican women having success on Tuesday’s primaries, not Sarah Palin. That’s just skimming the surface of the loopy stuff the liberal media have churned out recently and which NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell was brought on last night’s “Hannity” to address. Also discussed on the June 10 “Media Mash” segment, the media’s sensitive treatment of disgraced columnist Helen Thomas, who abruptly “retired” following a controversy regarding her suggestion that Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland [MP3 audio available here ; WMV video for download here ]: BRENT BOZELL: If I were Helen Thomas, I wonder, what is she more offended by, conservatives who call her a socialist and a radical, or her liberal friends who’ve all gone on national television to say she’s senile? And if it is true that she is that senile, what was she doing in the White House all these years? Here’s a woman who has spent decades with this anti-Semitic vicious vitriol that she spews out. And here they are all marching behind her.  SEAN HANNITY: You guys also picked this up years ago, because there were other things that she had said. BOZELL: And she’s the grande dame of journalism. This is a woman, I think it’s time for her to go fishing. This morning, the Media Research Center president also appeared on “Fox & Friends” to discuss the strangest story to come out of the primary season thus far: Alvin Greene, South Carolina Democrats’ nominee for Senate who’s facing criminal lewd conduct [MP3 audio of the segment here ; WMV video of the segment here ]: BRIAN KILMEADE: There was a problem with this Alvin Greene and some charges about him that are unsavory. Brent, can you imagine if this was a Republican? BOZELL: Well, if it were a Republican,  it would be on the news every single night. Now, this is going to be news just because there’s some head-scratching going on [about how Greene even won the Democratic nomination]. And I think what’s also been happening here, it shows the lack of resources that the media have today. You know, once upon a time, everybody had a thousand reporters out there in the field and they knew the stories that were happening. There really was an oversight on this, because people aren’t, there aren’t boots on the ground covering these stories. But they’re not seeing this tsunami that’s growing out there. And I’ll tell you something else —   KILMEADE: What do you mean by that? BOZELL: They’re not seeing this Tea Party explosion.  They’re not reading it correctly. They’re not understanding just how big it is and how independent it is.

View original post here:
MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Helen Thomas on ‘Hannity,’ Recent Primaries on ‘Fox & Friends’

The Week in Pictures: BP Could Go Bankrupt Over Gulf Spill, Solar Power Station on the Moon, and More (Slideshow)

In BP oil spill news this week, the media is making much of the fact that the company’s daily profits are higher than its daily cleanup costs. But that’s changing fast, it’s possible that the Gulf spill will end up bankrupting the oil giant. An oil spill expert and animal biologist says, “Kill, don’t clean” oiled birds; Based on the startling statistic that less than 1% of oil-soaked birds survive. An in other green news, a Greenpeace protest against tuna fishing in the Mediterranean turned violent this week when an activist was harpooned in the leg by a French fisherman; Chinese coal fires may final… Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the original post:
The Week in Pictures: BP Could Go Bankrupt Over Gulf Spill, Solar Power Station on the Moon, and More (Slideshow)

Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Watch CBS News Videos Online It’s been more than 50 days since a BP oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana, beginning a massive leak of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Miles of beaches have been soiled and birds, turtles and other sea creatures have died. But the most disturbing pictures of the disaster weren’t available to the public for more than 40 days. That was when many people finally witnessed Louisiana’s state bird, the brown pelican, literally covered in thick brown oil. Why so long? Because federal agencies including the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were preventing the press from reaching many areas affected by the disaster. CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune have all complained about local and federal authorities and and British Petroleum contractors inhibiting their reporting. But while many in the news media blame BP, the real culprit may well be the Obama administration. When asked, Obama and other administration spokespeople say the U.S. government is in charge of the oil spill cleanup. The president has openly stated that the federal government is in charge of the oil spill clean up. The Associated Press (AP) reported that “Obama says all steps BP takes to end the huge spill must be approved in advance by the government.” But journalists and the left have blamed BP rather than point fingers up the federal chain of command. Left-wing magazine Mother Jones called it a “corporate blockade at Louisiana’s crude-covered beaches.” Newsweek magazine pointed out the difficulty that photographers encountered when trying to “document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf.” In its article, Newsweek placed the blame squarely on British Petroleum from the headline: “BP’s Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill” to the quote from a Louisiana photographer who said the prefix “BP” ought to be attached to “Coast Guard” on all the vessels. “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,'” Charlie Varley told Newsweek. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.” It’s also not funny that many in the news media and on the left would rather blame BP for controlling federal agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) than recognize the similarities between limited media access in the Gulf and Obama’s previous actions controlling the press. Obama also has a long-standing pattern of handling the press, sometimes to the point of blocking access. So now that many reporters are complaining of a lack of access to the oil spill, it is surprising how little blame has been directed at the administration. During the campaign, he had three reporters from publications that had endorsed John McCain kicked off his plane. Since then he has openly attacked his detractors (including Rush Limbaugh) and was once criticized by a couple reporters (Chip Reid and Helen Thomas) for managing a town hall meeting. As of February, Obama had held fewer solo press conferences than most presidents — only George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon held fewer. And he went nearly a year, from July 22, 2009 until last week, without holding a formal news conference. Despite the failures of regulators at the Minerals Management Service and Obama’s own claim that the feds are in charge, a Media Research Center analysis of the oil spill coverage found 95 percent of stories had no criticism of the Obama administration whatsoever (148 out of 157 stories). Coast Guard, FAA keeps press away from Gulf spill Even though Newsweek, Mother Jones and others have clearly blamed BP for controlling federal agencies, government officials themselves are the ones that have been turning the news media away. So far, reporters and photographers from many outlets, including CBS, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mother Jones and AP have publicly complained about being denied access by local governments and law enforcement, the Coast Guard and the FAA. “More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts and even flyovers,” Newsweek wrote. CBS released video of a boat of BP contractors and two Coast Guard officials telling their reporters to leave an area on May 20. The video shows one man on the boat saying, “This is BP’s rules, not ours.” As a company, how could they exert authority over the Coast Guard, and why wouldn’t the Obama administration make sure that does not happen?  AP’s Matthew Brown was one of the few to attach some blame to government, not solely BP. Brown wrote that different media organizations were being restricted “though not all have linked the decision to BP. Government officials say restrictions are needed to protect wildlife and ensure safe air traffic.” While there was no mention of Obama in Brown’s story, Brown said the Coast Guard and FAA told him that “BP PLC was not controlling access.” It is the FAA that has imposed air space restrictions on miles of coastline, according to The Times-Picayune. Flights in certain areas cannot descend below 3,000 feet – effectively preventing aerial photography of the spill’s impact. Rhonda Panepinto, owner of Southern Seaplane charter service, told the New Orleans paper her husband was told ” absolutely no media or press on any planes. The press flights are limited to Saturdays only and only in Coast Guard helicopters.” According to The Times-Picayune, the government decides who can fly and who cannot: “the FAA maintains that BP employees or contractors are not calling the shots on who gets to fly into the restricted air space, saying those decisions are made by the FAA and Coast Guard. But agency spokespeople acknowledge that media access is limited, saying they are only allowing flights into the restricted area that are directly related to the disaster response.” A June 9 New York Times story from cited an incident where the Dept. of Homeland Security told Sen. Bill Nelson’s, D-Fla., that no journalists would be allowed to accompany him on a gulf trip on a Coast Guard vessel. Though the Times clearly blamed some government agencies, like DHS, it did not mention the Obama administration at all. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser condemned the federal response to the oil spill calling for Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen to resign . Nungesser also called on Obama to support Gov. Bobby Jindal’s EPA request for dredging permits to protect Louisiana. On May 28, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that Nungesser had a private meeting with Obama. Nungesser said Obama “chewed me out” and said “we need to communicate.” “You pick up the phone and call the White House. And, if you can’t get me on the phone, then you can go blast me,” Obama reportedly said to Nungesser. The Coast Guard has defended itself, specifically regarding the CBS incident, by saying that the media do have access: “In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.” That wasn’t sufficient for Ralph Ranalli, chief blogger for WGBH’s Beat the Press website. He chalked up the continued access problems up to ” cluelessness ” on the part of the Obama administration, but criticized the lame response from the Coast Guard. Ranalli said that the CBS clip should have “shamed” the Obama administration into making “a rational plan for media access.” “Embeds are fine in a war zone. But for the federal government to say the media should be satisfied with ride-alongs with an oil company under criminal investigation for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history is insane. It just staggers the imagination,” Ranalli wrote. Newsweek also took issue with such embeds arguing that “even when access is granted it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel.” Who’s really in charge? Media outlets have been determined to blame BP for the lack of access, despite the local and federal governments’ involvement. Unlike many reporters, one green blogger did call the president out on the Mother Nature Network. Karl Burkart, an architect and blogger about green technology, pointed out that “The Coast Guard, as one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, answers to the commander in chief – President Obama.” Ultimately Burkart said he “believed” Obama was ” aiding and abetting ” BP. But the question remains, is the White House powerless to control federal agencies like the Coast Guard? Or unwilling – because more coverage would mean more potential criticism for Obama? Or are these agencies puppets in the hands of BP? No matter the option, things don’t look good for the administration. Robert Gibbs, WH press secretary, deflected criticism of the administration on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” May 23 saying “There’s no doubt that we have had some problems with BP’s lack of transparency.” But the White House has been careful to claim that they’ve been charge of the clean up operations. Carol Browner, Obama’s energy and climate czar, said on “Meet the Press” May 30, “the government’s been in control from the beginning … don’t make any mistake here, the government is in charge.” ( Watch video ) Obama told AP the same thing, saying that BP had to get permission from Washington for all the clean up. So it stands to reason that the White House wouldn’t have trouble telling BP to allow the media unfettered access to report on the oil spill if it wanted to. But the Obama administration has a history of managing the press. Despite an often-“fawning” news media that helped get him elected , the president rarely holds formal news conferences. According to Byron York, Obama has done fewer brief Q&A sessions than Bush or Clinton. Even at a bill signing for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act May 18, Obama refused to answer questions from CBS’s Chip Reid. Reid asked, “”Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?” Obama replied, “You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip.” When Reid pressed further asking, “Will you answer them?” Obama said flat-out: “We won’t be answering.” York said that former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino was astounded by Obama dodging the press. “I think it is astonishing that there isn’t carping about this from the press every day,” Perino said. “Believe me, they would have nailed us to the wall.” Reid, along with liberal Helen Thomas, also challenged Obama for a “tightly controlled” town hall meeting in July 2009. “The concept of a town hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions,” Reid said to Gibbs. “Why? Why do it that way?” Later in that White House briefing even liberal journalist Helen Thomas accused the administration of “a pattern of controlling the press.” During his presidential campaign, Obama kicked three reporters off the press airplane –  all from conservative papers. ABC wrote, “the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.” The Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News were eliminated from the airplane. Since taking office, the Obama White House has hit back hard at critics in the media, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer . According to Limbaugh, Obama has simply been following the liberal Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Jonathan Martin of Politico agreed, saying on March 4 , all this isn’t coincidence; it is an effort to frame Limbaugh in the Alinsky mode. After Santelli’s rant about bailouts, Gibbs suggested that the CNBC floor reporter didn’t understand Obama’s mortgage plan. Gibbs also criticized Cramer and attempted to discredit him. But each of these actions by Obama, Emanuel or Gibbs has triggered a media-feeding frenzy and ensuing grassroots efforts to capitalize on the media attention and destroy the target. Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

View original post here:
Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Mitchell: If Obama Would Have Just ‘Eaten Some Shrimp,’ He Could Have Avoided Criticism

At this point, it may be safe to say that “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough is no more Republican than Arlen Specter. After all, the show’s “conservative” host takes almost every opportunity to defend the current administration and dismiss Obama’s critics. On June 9, the panelists were reviewing the Obama administration’s response to the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  Scarborough asserted, “A poll yesterday shows that more people think that the government is mishandling this then Katrina , which is just, I think, ridiculous .”  Fellow MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell agreed, and noted that the president and his team have been down in the Gulf working hard. And then Mitchell asserted that Obama could have diminished criticism if a week earlier, he had “gone down there and stayed and had a meal with the people, eaten some shrimp.” [MP3 audio avaiable here ] Later, Scarborough held out hope that success is still attainable for the president because this crisis is a “marathon” and “not a sprint. He can play catch up.” While the Gulf is being ravaged with an estimated 12,000 to 25,000 barrels of oil daily and its residents’ livelihoods are being destroyed, it is reassuring to hear Scarborough offer that this is above all, a test of endurance for the president. Co-host Mika Brzezinski added her concern, wondering, “have we been covering it intensely?” Even though the oil spill has been a topic of discussion every day since it started, Scarborough practically insulted his audience by claiming that they were unaware of the president’s efforts and that, “there is a disconnect between that reality and the perception of Americans.” It just doesn’t occur to Scarborough that he may be the one who is out of touch.

CNN Blames White People For Obama’s Slow Action On Oil Spill

The excuses keep rolling in to explain why President Obama is seemingly detached from the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. On Wednesday, CNN.com reached a new low by blatantly playing the race card: President Obama is afraid to look angry in public because white people historically haven’t liked angry black men. This conclusion was reached by four supposed experts (all of whom were sympathetic to Obama), with no one else mentioned to provide any ounce of skepticism. Apparently CNN’s logic goes something like this: Obama grew up being afraid of offending white people, so he developed a natural aversion to public displays of emotion, which means his cool response to the oil spill right now is the final product of white bigotry. Writer John Blake got straight to the point with his headline ” Why Obama Doesn’t Dare Become the Angry Black Man .” It was all downhill from there (h/t NBer Mr. Shy): Here’s proof that President Obama has indeed ushered in a new era in race relations. Who would have ever expected some white Americans to demand that an African-American man show more rage? If you’ve followed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, you’ve heard the complaints that Obama isn’t showing enough emotion. But scholars say Obama’s critics ignore a lesson from American history: Many white Americans don’t like angry black men. It’s the lesson Obama absorbed from his upbringing, and from an impromptu remark he delivered last summer. Yet it’s a lesson he may now have to jettison, they say, as public outrage spreads. Notice the sleight of hand being used here: President Obama’s election advanced race relations further than even he is enlightened enough to realize, causing him to be puzzled by white Americans suddenly wanting to see emotion. And we know it has to be true because there are scholars who say so! Who are these scholars? Sadly, the answer is all too predictable. Up first was one Saladin Ambar who made an off-putting analogy to Samuel Jackson: “Folks are waiting for a Samuel Jackson ‘Snakes on the Plane’ moment from this president as in: ‘We gotta’ get this $#@!!* oil back in the $#!!* rig!’ But that’s just not who Obama is,” says Saladin Ambar, a political science professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. How innocuous that Ambar was simply called a political science professor. Left out of CNN’s coverage was the fact that Ambar has long been a fan of President Obama, and has used his respected position as a professor to glorify Obama’s policies in front of college students. Next came liberal activist William Jelani Cobb who agreed wholeheartedly with Ambar, but this time with a book to sell: Some of the same people crying for Obama to show more emotion would have voted against him if he had displayed anger during his presidential run, says William Jelani Cobb, author of “The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress.” “It would have fed deeply into a pre-existing set of narratives about the angry black man,” Cobb says. “The anger would have gotten in the way. He would have frightened off white voters who were interested in him because he seemed to be like the black guy they worked with or went to graduate school with — not a black guy who is threatening.” Cobb is one of many university professors obsessed with race whom the media keep on speed dial to help with this very subject. It came as a surprise to exactly no one that he saw racism at work yet again. As to the substance of his commentary – that President Obama could have blown it by getting emotional during the 2008 campaign – CNN was helpful enough to find yet another expert to corroborate the claim: Evoking the specter of the angry black man almost cost Obama his shot at the White House, says Paul Street, an author and political activist who worked with Obama in Chicago. Street says videos of Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily condemning America were so dangerous to Obama’s campaign because it hinted that Obama may have been an angry black man behind closed doors. “Rev. Wright almost cost him his run for the presidency because of fears of the angry black man,” says Street, author of the upcoming book “The Empire’s New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power.” “What was Rev. Wright but the ultimate symbol of the angry black man who is going to take revenge,” Street says. That symbol is hardwired into American history and popular culture. It’s Nat Turner, the slave who inspired a bloody 19th-century uprising. It’s Malcolm X, the black militant who denounced “blue-eyed devils.” It’s the hip-hop and rap artists who populate contemporary radio. Street’s entire point was that Jeremiah Wright was toxic for all the wrong reasons. Americans weren’t afraid that Obama agreed with a hateful ideology, they were just repulsed by the thought of a black person who sounded angry. According to the article, such superficial racism showed up again in 2009: But Obama has “gone off” before and that didn’t work too well for him, says Ambar. During a news conference last summer, Obama casually said that police acted “stupidly” when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates in his home for disorderly conduct after a confrontation with a white police officer. Obama’s comments infuriated many white people, and even some black supporters. Obama had to have a Beer Summit to calm the public uproar. “He flashed genuine anger,” says Ambar. “At that moment, when he touched on the issue of race, he spoke frankly and passionately about what he felt and it got him into a big deal of trouble.” Once again, the message being relayed here is all too clear: if you disagreed with Obama’s handling of anything from Jeremiah Wright to Henry Gates, you’re a racist who just doesn’t like anger spouting from black people. Obama had “casually” thrown in a comment about stupidity, but somehow it was a passionate display of “genuine anger” anyway, and thus he got in trouble for being too emotional. But the most shocking observance from an expert was yet to come. The article closed with a quote from John Baick, assistant professor of history at Western New England College, who insisted that the oil spill was just a passing inconvenience in the bigger picture: “Our commander in chief has many burdens, and among them is our history and culture,” Baick says. “Compared to the weight of that, the current BP crisis and the years of environmental damage and cleanup must seem transient.” That’s right, folks. Weeks and weeks of an endless gush of oil, billions of dollars gone, human lives lost, entire species in peril, thousands of jobs hanging in the balance, and the coast of poor states like Louisiana virtually destroyed for what could be many years – all of this is some transient thing compared to Obama’s personal fear of white America. There might be some out there who think President Obama should stop worrying about who he offends and just make the tough choices a leader has to make, but CNN would have none of that. Nothing in the article suggested that maybe, just maybe, Obama supporters were making excuses to cover for an ineffective president. The entire premise was accepted and passed on to readers as plain fact. Four experts tapped to express an unprecedented amount of sympathy for our poor beleaguered president, and no one around to provide balance of any kind. That’s the Most Trusted Name in News hard at work. 

Link:
CNN Blames White People For Obama’s Slow Action On Oil Spill