Taint wrote:

It's a beautiful day here in San Francisco, today. Thanks for making me too depressed to enjoy it.

There is still a few openings for the next class on cynicism.  I hear it may not be offered in the Bay Area.
Hey Taint.

[I am the instructor.]

What's up Arkansas?

So...  you are not showing up for my course.
Damn, how can one make a living teaching reality?

Damn, how can one make a living teaching reality?

There is still a slot for you, phreddy.

phreddy wrote:

I find it interesting that Obama is taking this much heat.  I have a whole list of things to blame on him, but this isn't one of them.  Is this an indication he's lost his teflon cloak?  I don't know, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the same people who blamed Bush for Katrina would blame Obama for an industrial accident.  These people simply do not understand that the federal government doesn't really control the world's social and financial health, and, regardless of claims, cannot forever shield them from evil and heartache.

I think the government should be responsible for natural disaster management, but not for corporate chemical disasters. You have to admit that hiring an Arabian Horse Association guy to be in charge of natural disasters was a bad move--you can't hand out patronage jobs when lives are on the line. If we assumed responsibility for any foreseeable chemical incidents, then companies have no incentive whatsoever to prevent them. And it would cost billions of dollars.

I never understood the people that blamed Bush for 9/11 (not the ones who said he caused it). He was only in office for a few months, and it was legitimately on nobody's radar. Likewise, if Obama was taking meetings about oil platform safety before all this happened, the responses would have been "why is he trying to micromanage and do everything at once," or "this is the government shoving regulations down business' throats."

It's frustrating to watch because I like Obama and he didn't cause the accident, is responsible for it without having the power to fix it, and is taking the heat from a public who became a nation of deep water drilling experts overnight. (I keep thinking of that scene from The Great Outdoors--"you have to wick the paper, wick the paper," except 100 million of that guy).

I was thinking about something else that I never thought was fair about Bush... In the interests of easing partisanship and blind-team-playerism I'll post it when I can remember.

Last edited by ah297900 (2010-06-10 20:24:20)

ah297900 wrote:

I never understood the people that blamed Bush for 9/11 (not the ones who said he caused it). He was only in office for a few months, and it was legitimately on nobody's radar.

It was on the radar.  Bush was warned during the transition that a major attack orchestrated by Bin-Laden was anticipated within the next few months.  He also received warnings after he was sworn in.  He blew them off and concentrated on finding a reason to invade Iraq, make his friends rich at public expense, and on dismantling environmental and workplace safety regulations.

I watch all of this and I wonder why the states which have been profiting from the oil platforms, employment taxes, business expenditures etc., never anticipated any type of problem or made any plans whatsoever to deal with what in the end was inevitable. Now those same states which have been raking in money for years are yelling for federal government help.

You know what? Help yourselves why don't you. And I am really not speaking to the citizens of these states, but more the governments. I am sick of seeing your talking heads crying "help us!" while you do nothing to help yourselves.

And another thing:

Perhaps those that claim to have a way to remedy this situation should get off their collective asses and go down there and show someone how they would clean up this mess. Youtube is not going to get it done I'm afraid. But some of you did get your 15 minutes.

We want to blame Obama, but what did he do? Nothing that I can see. If he had tried to do anything before this accident the Right would have been screaming socialism from the tops of their lungs. If he tries to step in now, after the disaster, what would he do? Send in the military? To do what? Bomb the oil spill?  We, as a country, have no expertise in this area. Isn't it best to leave the fixing to those that at least have been considering how to handle such a situation? This one is a no win as far as I can tell for Obama.

ah297900 wrote:

I meant that more along the lines of what a government ought and oughtn't be responsible for. Like, for instance, I don't think the government should be responsible for capital punishment--it's a power that they shouldn't have. Building roads is a power that they should have. I reserve the right to hold an opinion about what I believe the appropriate purview of my government's powers and responsibilities to be.

I disagree with you and thus you have no rights!!


....oh wait a minute, I forgot I'm actually not a Tea Partier ~ go ahead with your thoughts and ideas.

ah297900 wrote:

I reserve the right to hold an opinion about what I believe the appropriate purview of my government's powers and responsibilities to be.

That opinion and ten bits will get you...

Meanwhile, members of Obama's expert oil panel are saying they never recommended a ban on drilling, and that their report was altered for political purposes after they signed it.

Sorry about that.  I guess I am a subscriber.  Here is the full text of the story.

Drilling Bits of Fiction
Seven experts say the White House distorted their views

The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: "The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."

That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. "The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions," wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians.

The seven noted that they broadly agreed with the report and had even signed off on a proposal to suspend new deep water permits for six months. They also agreed to a "temporary pause" in drilling to perform additional testing on the Gulf's 33 deep water wells that have already received permits to drill. But as for a "blanket moratorium," the seven said it "is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill." If anything, the ban could prove "counterproductive to long term safety."

One of the seven, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, further explained in an email cited in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: "Moratorium was not a part" of the "report we consulted-advised-reviewed. Word from [the Department of Interior] was it was a [White House] request." In other words, the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies. Our guess is that the credit goes to energy czar Carol Browner, who has been loudly touting the ban to show the Administration is doing something.

Mr. Obama has said he's open to rescinding the ban earlier if new safety recommendations could be implemented sooner. But he has punted that question to the commission he appointed to investigate the spill, which isn't even fully staffed and has six months to report its findings. That will arrive too late for thousands of Gulf residents who are at risk of losing their jobs within weeks as deep water rigs prepare to leave the Gulf. As a tacit admission of the damage it is causing, the White House is now saying it expects BP to cover the wages of workers affected by its own politicized moratorium.

Americans don't blame Mr. Obama for the oil spill, but they are beginning to doubt the competence of a President whose decisions suggest political panic more than careful policy. In their letter, the seven experts encouraged Mr. Salazar to "overcome emotion with logic" and rethink the ban. That's good political advice too.

ah297900 wrote:

He would be pilloried if he didn't call for a pause and reevaluation of oil platforms.

The experts on his panel seem to think Obama being pilloried is less important that fucking up the American economy.

AH wrote:

Honest question: could you draw a line for me how this moratorium will fuck up the economy?

I was simply referring to a quote from the letter written by seven members of Obama's expert panel.

It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill." If anything, the ban could prove "counterproductive to long term safety."

Fled wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

He would be pilloried if he didn't call for a pause and reevaluation of oil platforms.

Some of that reads like typical WSJ hyperbole.  It seems more of a quibble than a rupture.  The seven favored a 6 month suspension in new deep water permits, and the President's policy is for a moratorium on deep water drilling for up to six months.  Whoop-dee-doo.  While I am no expert, it seems to me that it is most important that no new deep water drilling be done until appropriate safety measures are identified and implemented, something that will take many months. 

The more important fact, which you ignore and the WSJ merely mentions, is that the seven broadly endorse the report.

Regardless, it's clear the experts feel that shutting down producing wells is nothing more than a political move which will hurt more than help and they don't want to be associated with that policy.  Remember, these are not WSJ analysts.  They are the president's hand chosen experts on offshore drilling.

Fled wrote:

Personally, I think you have to be a melon head to think we should just go on our merry way, drilling in deep water, without taking as long as it takes to make sure this cannot happen again.  This situation has shown how far wrong a fuck up can go. 

By the way, it is laughable that the WSJ is relying on these seven engineers to assert, wholly without any credible explanation, that the moratorium will result in greater economic harm than the spill.  What a complete fucking crock.  Not to mention their assertion that the moratorium will somehow be "counterproductive to long-term safety."  That statement really needs some explanation, because to a lay-person it sounds ridiculous.

I don't know how smart these experts really are, but Obama was supposedly relying on them, until they refused to be treated as his tools, that is.  Also, nobody said we shouldn't reassess the idea of drilling in deep water.  The experts were questioning Obama's plan to shut down operating wells that have had no problems.

It's probably a good time to focus attention on the oil industry as a whole. When Mega-oil companies police themselves or How's that free-market deregulation thingy working out for ya?

Dmtdust wrote:

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_5100.html#areas

Obviously no cover up here...move along!

sup bitches?

me an my s/o moved out here to the Outer Banks in NC.  Been a while, but just wanted to let all y'all know that Ol Hossy is still out here and still prancing. 

The decision to move from New York State to North Carolina was a long and involved process.  We'd been here before quite a few times, and had fallen in love with the state.  But until recently I had no viable means to stay solvent outside of New York.  Now that I do most of my work remotely, it doesn't matter where in fiddler's fuck I reside, and so I am now here in Nag's Head and loving it. 

I hope you all are well.  With my more laid back lifestye, I am hoping to find more time to spend with my beloved adopted family  --that's you all, my pretties.  Together we can build a better tomorrow before the tar balls reach the tar heels. 

As I recall I think that one or two of you may now be my neighbors.  I would welcome anyone near to get together with me for a beer. 

And so, my lovelies, I close for now.  Hope none of you missed the relevance of my choice of NC town to live in.  Know all of you that your love and support helped me in deciding how ...umm... appropriate "Nag's Head" would be.

FNORD ... Love ya baby, but I could not, for obvious reasons, accept you into my little clique.  Although I was torn up about it for a day or two.  It could have led to disaster, and so I had to ignore your request.  Hope you can understand, bro. 

As always, you can reach me at drudgeries@yahoo.com.

Fragrant, yellow GHL, oily and viscouus, to you all.  YEE HEE!!!

Last edited by Horseonovich (2010-06-14 20:46:02)

BP uses it's Rent-A-Cops to keep reporters off of public lands and to intimidate their temporary workers.

I am in NC, 5 hours west of you.

I have enjoyed the hang gliding off that very dune. It can be fun if the wind is from the correct direction (off the ocean). A pretty short flight though. If you try it out and find it to your liking and get some good practice before attempting this, there is a great place to launch in Chattanooga, TN on Overlook Mountain. But it is definitely not for those who suffer from vertigo.