Negative Obamaology

Anyone who honestly considers the available information on Obama and his year and a half in office must concede that Obama isn't a Muslim, a terrorist, "a Arab", a Communist or The Anti-Christ. Eliminating these definitions as applicable to our president still leaves one with much defining to do. I had initially wanted to give him some proper positive definitions, but I think some thoughtful rambling will bear more fruit.

Now, I must note that I find Obama more respectable than most Democrats in office right now. That might be due to my own naiveté. I imagine time will tell. And I don't hope that Obama fails for the sake of the Republicans gaining office; I hope that Obama will succeed, for America's sake, though my skepticism ranges from moderate to severe, depending on the issue. So I don't have it in for the man, as he has "the hardest job in the world."

Actually, that's not quite true. He has the job with the most responsibility in the world, or at least his responsibility has the most coverage of any job in the world. And I'm sure he works damn hard at his job. But there are jobs that must be at least equally difficult. And defining what makes a job difficult is difficult indeed, as one could have a weak body, or a weak mind, or a weak soul, and be placed in a job that others might not find difficult but that would be nearly impossible for certain individuals. I imagine Christopher Hitchens being forced to be a Pentecostal minister, for instance.

So despite the difficulties of the office of POTUS, which are indeed demanding in many ways, Obama is fit for his office, as he is a fine speaker, young and in good health and highly educated. Though his job can truly be said to be difficult, there are probably many jobs in D.C. as stressful, either because of the level of responsibility, the demands of the job relative to the worker, the inner life of the worker, et cetera.

But going back to the original point, Obama has fallen into being "anti-scientific", that is, he's making decisions that aren't based on what is clear in the light of reason: He is not putting his faith and reason in science, which is definitely sinful. Obama made a big point about how he and his administration would not be swayed by ideologies (you'd think someone with his intellectual background and capacity would know better) when things like the oil spill arose, because good science is the best solution for most problems, especially a problem like this.

Unfortunately, the oil spill, a scenario where Scientism would be totally in his zone, has taken a back seat to Big Oil Money and Bureaucracy, who did sports management and business in undergrad, respectively, and then got MBAs. The one time we could have used Scientism, that cold-hearted bastard who at least believes in something outside himself (even if it isn't something entirely good, or beautiful, or true), we now must rely on the culpable corporation's scientists, and the government officials with whom they fornicate frequently, to give us "data." (I put data in quotes because the data is inaccurate data, because it's not based on empiricism but in industrial capitalism.) Anyway, when there are independent scientists estimating that the oil spill is probably spewing out 17 times more oil than official estimates, the phrase "total debacle" feels more and more appropriate.

Obama isn't stupid, so I imagine he's aware of at least the general spirit and truth of my criticisms, or at least why one might have such criticisms. The question is, why isn't he doing anything? Does he disagree with my criticisms, or does he agree and is entirely impotent, despite him holding the highest political office in the world? I imagine it's some of both. I'd like to think and write more about that, but not tonight.

I can't compare Katrina to Deepwater Horizon, as they are entirely different disasters. Over a thousand are supposed to have died from Katrina, whereas 11 died in this incident. Both events caused massive physical destruction, but Katrina's destruction was terrible primarily in that it destroyed human life and society, whereas the oil spill is deadly to all life and will affect humans in ways more subtle, at least initially. Calling the oil spill "Obama's Katrina" was too easy and premature an analogy to make initially, but the more information that comes out about the BP oil spill, the more the label rings true.

How much should Obama be blamed for this event? Well, he is culpable in many ways. But most likely anyone electable would do roughly what he did. I fear that only the unelectable would be able or willing to do the right thing in an event like this. So Obama deserves his portion of the blame, but we shouldn't be absolutely surprised or scandalized, either. We also shouldn't ignore the facts, or, more likely, not know the facts due to willful ignorance. What we should do is something of which I'm not exactly sure, though I have some intuitions.