BP in crude political dilemma

The American people seem to want their president to be some kind of cross between a genie in a bottle and a jack in the box. He is, of course, neither. But disasters always lead to a belief that the president is the chief fixer as well as the Chief. So President Obama is now involved in some form of crude politics in order to rid the Gulf of Mexico of crude oil. Calling BP "British Petroleum" just ratchets up the blame game but it hardly serves to find a real solution. The truth is that there were three other American companies giving willing support to BP in their quest for deep sea oil wealth. And it's not as if BP is exclusively British. American investors have a sizeable share in the global conglomerate. Perhaps we should call it Anglo-American-Sino-Hispanic-Franco-Teutonic Petroleum.

BP is being asked for billions of dollars to help with the clean-up. Where is all this money going to go? First off, I hope it will have a properly audited paper trail and not just be doled out to porkbarrel merchants and get-rich-quick consultants. Will some be given in compensation? Who will decide how much each deserving case should get? A lot more questions will be forthcoming. I hope the answers will be honest and straightforward. What we don't want is filthy lucre literally contaminated by the globular oil it is expected to remove.

In the course of events some will lose their livelihoods, others will gain massively by obtaining cleaning contracts they never dreamed of. This could well be the biggest redistribution of wealth in a single episode of history. We just need to keep a check on who gets what in President Obama's counting house handouts.

Palin warming to the idea of God's global plan!

Sarah Palin is a bit like the curate's egg. Good in parts. She comes across as gutsy, folksy and someone with determination. But somehow the transcripts of her spoken voice leave something to be desired.

I get the impression she's latched onto the "It's all Nature's effects" viewpoint, because it suits her political stance over oil exploration in Alaska. However, she leaves room for suggesting it's partly man-made. I go along with that. It does seem more than likely that it is a mixture of natural change coming together with man-made effects of pollution and industrial wastage.

Where she doesn't do herself any favours, is when she suggests that nothing should be done except to accept that things and people should adapt to these changes without the necessary self-controls. I think she'd rather drill for oil than reduce emissions.

That leads on to suggest that McCain and Palin are not singing from the same hymn-sheet. More here.

Alitalia cancels flights and may soon be flightless!

The long drawn out death throws of Alitalia is somewhat baffling. At least Lehman Brothers were put out of their agony quickly. The airline confirmed that a number of flights have been cancelled, but denied it had run out of aviation fuel. So something else has caused this?

They are a peculiar lot these CEOs of large businesses. It seems its all talk and no walk! Who in their right mind would supply Alitalia with any fuel unless it was cash up front?

Pass the smelling salts? No, I think a humane injection will be better!

Sarah Palin takes the Scottish Nationalist line!

So living in Alaska gives you some form of political independence? Sarah Palin is sounding ever so much like Alex Salmond used to do. He's now First Minister in a devolved Scottish Parliament making sure he's not far from Scotland's oil. Palin thinks the oil under the ground and the seas around Alaska is for her to control. "It's Alaskan oil!", she purrs. She would like to "sell" Alaskan oil to the US. She claims that Alaska struck a deal 50 years ago (on entry into the Union) with the Federal Government to exploit the resources of Alaska. If Alaska can't do that, will she think it best to go it alone?

She now has a stark choice. It's either going to be Alaskan oil or American oil. It can't be both. As VP will she have to eat her words? This little offering is on the Glenn Beck show (before she got the VP ticket place) and she seems to be on good form (she comes in at 4.18 on the clock!). On Iraq, she says "We're fighting, in some sense, over energy supplies". Well, she said it!

Watch this space, I say!

Guilt by association - Guantanamo style!

I see that a US military jury at Guantanamo Bay has convicted Osama Bin Laden's former driver of supporting terrorism. Salim Hamdan was found guilty of five of eight charges of supporting terrorism but acquitted him of two separate, more serious, charges of conspiracy. So he just drove Bin Laden around knowing he was an arch-terrorist but did not join in with any conspiratorial talk. It's all a bad joke in this kangaroo court land, isn't it?

Do the prosecuting soldiers in this Cuban camp think that by just driving you support the activities of the driven? In that case, the recently jailed crook Lord Black's chauffeur could be pinned against a wall and accused of fraud. Max Mosley's driver could be said to support kinky sex, and Amy Winehouse's driver may be accused of supporting her various antics.

All chauffeurs and personal drivers better watch out. Uncle Sam may have you if your boss gets into trouble. By the way, is anybody questioning George Bush over his past friendliness with the Bin Laden family? Oil and water don't mix, I know, but what of oil and truthful politics? We're still waiting on that one!