I hate to say this, but Spike Lee was right. We need to “go off” about this oil spill. The slow response is unacceptable at best. Unfortunately, film critic Roger Ebert didn’t listen to Lee’s advice to Obama and is instead the latest apologist for the lack of government response in the Gulf.
Ebert appears to be comfortable with the idea of doing absolutely nothing. When you convince yourself that there is no answer and disaster is inevitable, I suppose it helps justify your lack of interest in the crisis. We are lucky that there are actually people who won’t give up and continue to desperately try to save the Gulf (see Bobby Jindal and Kevin Costner).
Like Obama did in his last address, Ebert shows little or no remorse for the environment at stake and instead uses this disaster to push a different agenda. This week in the Chicago Sun-Times Ebert expresses his frustration with criticism from the Right:
Obama is under relentless attack now from the Right. That’s a great help. I have been arguing in his defense, asking, please, what can he do to “handle” the crisis? We are told he hasn’t seemed “concerned” enough. He flies to the Gulf states for his fourth trip and is attacked for having a goddamn ice cream cone. He expresses concern. He says he’s mad. He gives a speech from the Oval Office in which he comes up with no answers because there are none.
No, Obama comes up with zero answers because he refuses to stop campaigning. You can say you wish something could be done all you want, but that doesn’t help, either. We need people who will actually do something. Most people aren’t mad because he went to the Gulf and ate ice cream, they are mad because he continuously “acts” like he is going to make a difference instead of actually doing so. We know it is bad when even Spike Lee sees Obama’s lack of interest.
When we write a review bashing a film, it is always useful to tell the readers why it could have been better, what the director, actors or writers could have improved. Ebert has been exercising this for decades, why can’t he use the same logic for the oil spill and the president? Instead, Ebert echoes Obama by ignoring the crisis at hand and tells us the only thing that can be done:
There’s obviously only one remedy: An energy revolution. We must reduce consumption and develop clean energy alternatives. We try to avoid this overwhelming fact.
Just like the current administration, Ebert wants to ignore the crisis and exploit this crisis to discuss future “revolutions” while our Gulf goes to hell in a hand basket. Replace the oil with a clean energy, fine. I agree, change is probably good in the long run, but why don’t we start by stopping the leak and changing the Gulf back into the beautiful environment it once was? It’s not too late; Ebert’s defeatist attitude is exactly what will guarantee the worst for the Gulf if the same is kept up by our government.
Ebert continues:
We liberals mocked Sarah Palin’s “drill, baby, drill!” because she wanted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If there’s anything liberals love more than Sarah Palin does, it’s wildlife.
Well, you guys have a funny way of showing it. Ebert’s article is littered with pictures of oily, dead birds and fish. What Ebert apparently fails to admit at length is that there is much more at stake than the reputations of a country or corporation or even the future of energy consumption. Ebert’s answer to this crisis is to prove his loyalty to loving wildlife by saying “oh well” to the spill and push for clean energy, a revolution the Left has dreamed about for decades. Sure, we can have the discussion about clean energy but that doesn’t matter right now. The Gulf desperately needs our attention and we will get nowhere by taking Ebert’s advice.
The truth is the Ebert and the power in Washington don’t really care about the Gulf, wildlife or otherwise. It’s an agenda thing, check out PETA’s homepage. You would think they would be all over this oil spill trying to save animals in danger but instead we are asked to vote for the “sexiest vegetarian celebrities,” now isn’t that courageous?
We all know this spill supports Ebert’s dream of a “clean and green” future, if only he could come out and say it; the oil-drenched wildlife is just collateral damage.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.