Gulf Coast Oil Spill is ... Chocolate Milk?

Original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/gene-taylor-mississippi-c_n_561362.html

Just two weeks ago, a BP oil drill exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, slowing dumping its contents - an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day - into the ocean. Needless to say, the effects of this explosion will be catastrophic. In addition to the damage done to the environment and wildlife in the area, businesses who located on the coast - tourism companies, fisheries, etc. - are faced with considerable loss of income. As Washington insiders caught wind of the incident, I heard many phrases used to describe the event. Some called this "Obama's Katrina" while words like "accountability," "action," and "response" were thrown about. But one description in particular caught my attention.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss) downplayed the consequences of the explosion, saying that "it's not too terrible" and that the "chocolate-milk looking spill will break up naturally." Chocolate-milk? Break up "naturally"? While it is true that crude oil will react to the compounds on sea water to eventually disintegrate naturally, 5,000 barrels of oil pumping into the ocean is hardly natural, let alone subject to natural processes. Also, what's with the chocolate milk comparison? Are we supposed to accept this incongruous comparison of an economically and environmentally disastrous event to a childhood favorite that fills our elementary school cafeterias?

It's not surprising that this controversial comparison was cut out from a transcript of Taylor's remarks uploaded to his official House.gov website. But why make these controversial, arguably inaccurate claims on these ongoing events? What's his motive? I did some digging around, and I discovered that Taylor has consistently supported legislation to expand offshore oil drilling. According to a thinkprogress.org webpage, he voted to lift drilling in ANWR, and voted against the House's clean energy bill. Certainly, by downplaying the effects of this incident he can affect public opinion on offshore drilling, presumably to fit his own perspectives. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Big Oil companies - Chevron, Exxon, and BP - contribute to Taylor's campaign coffers (if they haven't been doing so already).

This article is one of the most interesting documentations of politically-charged language in recent news. This particular type of language, which indirectly seeks to defend one's position on a certain issue by persuading the public, is not as common as directly stating one's position and rallying public opinion to support that position. I certainly look forward to examining this issue in more detail as more developments emerge. In the meantime, we're left with images of chocolate milk swirling around in the Gulf poisoning wildlife and bankrupting small businesses.