Reply #85: on the misrepresentations

[William Z. Foster]

Besides making a simple and clear call for nationalizing the response to the catastrophe, and explaining why that should be done, I also complained about the way you were characterizing those who did not agree with you. Here are examples:

A lot of you seriously need a reality check. I can understand the anger and outrage over the spill, but there's a difference between productive outrage and the kind of blind rage and ignorant, foot-stomping tantrums the teabag crowd has honed into an art form.

How many of you instant experts have even fixed a leaking faucet?

As pissed as some here get at the creationist crowd and global warming deniers for not respecting the scientists and researchers enough to trust them, there sure does seem to be next to zero trust of people who drill wells for a living. How much of that bias is the product of your politics?

What, exactly, will nationalizing BP accomplish? If you think the lack of nationalization is causing some kind of problem, what is it, and how will it be solved? If you think nationalization will somehow open up new options that are currently unavailable, what are they, and how will they then come about?

You want to put your anger to productive use?

The worst enemy of any progress is and has always been laziness. Stop being lazy; instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with, think critically about what they're saying, and refine what you say.

You say that critics are merely angry, and should vent their anger in some other way. That is false. People may be angry, but that does not invalidate what they are saying.

You say that critics are out of touch with reality. That is false, and you make no attempt to support that smear.

You compare critics of leaving this response in BP's hands to the creationist crowd and global warming deniers, because they do not trust the experts at well drilling. This is a false charge. No one said replace the experts, they said replace the BP executives. The experts will still be there under federal authority. Comparing critics to the creationist crowd and global warming deniers i sim0pokly a dishonest way to smear them.

You claim that people need some sort of mechanical ability or technical expertise in order to be able to make valid criticism of the way the response is being handled. That is false. People's lack of ability, or imagined lack of ability, does not invalidate what they say about the politics of this issue.

You claim that people are calling for the nationalization of BP, rather than the nationalization of the response and demand that they justify that with specifics or else their argument is invalid. This is false, another draw man argument and another dishonest attempt to discredit those who disagree with you. People are arguing for the feds to be in charge rather than the BP execs for the very same reason they support public education, the very same reason they object to federal agencies being staffed by industry insiders, the very same reason they object to privatized prisons and privatized military units, the exact same reason they support public control over all things affecting public welfare rather than leaving those things in private hands.

If you are arguing for privatization at all times, rather than public control, you should say so. If you are arguing for privatization in this one particular case, then the burden is on you to explain why. No expertise, personnel or resources are available to BP that would not also be available to the federal government. The difference is the will - the federal government is charged with protecting the public interest, BP is charged with protecting the shareholdres' interests. Do you deny that? Would you claim that this does not matter? Please be clear.