(Warning: a satirical entry)
Just returned from a weekend trip to Portland and was surprised to read that the teabaggers are not in an uproar over the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico from the BP (British Petroleum) oil-drilling platform fire that has claimed 11 human lives. (The lives of fish or birds don't count. Their lives matter even less than natives of India who perish on bus crashes.)
Yes, the oil spill will likely far surpass the disaster of the Exxon Valdez in the Gulf of Alaska. Yes, fishing has been stopped from Louisiana to Florida, even though those anglers account for a mere third of the entire U.S. haul. And yes, most importantly, the price of oil is likely to rise.
But, why does the U.S. government need to take over this oil spill like it did the banks and the auto companies? What does the government know about oil drilling let alone massive oil spills?
Can't the government let the environment fail? Afterall, if we fix it now, what does that mean for the future -- the dreaded "moral hazard."
If we bail out pelicans and shrimp now, what does that mean for sea otters and seagulls when the next oil spill happens? They'll be lining up like for federal aid like investment bankers at a short sale.
It's something the government hasn't fully considered.
An environmental disaster caused by a card-carrying member of Big Oil is something that only Big Oil knows how to fix.
I mean, who cleaned up Prince William Sound after the Exxon disaster in1989?
Okay, so it's still not entirely cleaned up? But, like the saying goes, --it happens.
We can't let a little 130-mile-long-by-70-mile-wide oil slick stop us from further drilling along our coastlines.
Because, if we don't drill in the gulf, off our coastlines or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, then we'll be buying from OPEC and face more 9/11-type terrorist attacks.
The bottom line is this: either we terrorize our own environment or let the Islamic extremists terrorize us.
Which one do you prefer?