Since the whole thing with BP & the $20 billion escrow is turning out to be a bigger issue than expected, I have this to say about it:
While for obvious reason I don’t buy into the whole narrative of that coming about due to Obama’s threat to buttrape Tony Hayward negotiation prowess, say hypothetically a group of private citizens from the most immediately affected area had gotten access to BP management & expressed the kind of view — “pay this or else” — that various rightwing commentators are falsely attributing to Black Reagan. Still a problem?
Considering the situation involves the misuse of property that was artificially granted via the State, and fallout from cutting corners in the process, to me the tort claim is firm. Those people have commonly held property (the waters of the gulf), that property was fouled, ergo BP fucking owes them. So, if Obama HAD done what Limbaugh & the like claim, the problem would not be what he did, but the fact that HE — an agent of the State — did it, and not someone who had moral standing to.
I don’t anticipate anguished screaming to this, but if you have any, go ahead. This is due to my personal understanding of what defines property. IMO, to say the act I describe is wrong beyond the context of who does it is, effectively, to say that the people of the gulf region are owed jack shit.