The Oil Spill Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

how about.....let's have a way to stop an oil spill before we let them drill offshore? you know, like a plan better than lets shoot golf balls and pieces of tire at it, hee-yuck!

What is more realistic:Demanding that they have a 100% foolproof method of drilling in one of the most hostile environments in the world.orLetting them drill in shallow waters where even when this type of things happens every 20 years, we can send divers down to fix it in about 3 days max?

[CaneBrain 95]

What is more realistic:Demanding that they have a 100% foolproof method of drilling in one of the most hostile environments in the world.orLetting them drill in shallow waters where even when this type of things happens every 20 years, we can send divers down to fix it in about 3 days max?

not asking for foolproof drilling. asking for a way to fix mistakes. huge difference. How we could allow them to drill in deep water without having any way to fix a mistake is beyond me.not sold that the solution is to move drilling closer to the land. first bit of oil started hitting FL today. good times.

[AmScray 355]

What frosts my ass here is that they knew from almost day 1 that this was going to be catastrophic. It doesn't take a particularly nimble pattern of thought to arrive at the conclusion that the USACE would be needed at virtually every step in this operation, from preventive measures to head off landfall to attacking the leak itself at the source. That's what the USACE is; they're a big braintrust we throw at really, really hard problems to ensure they're solved in the best way possible. The USACE 'batsignal' should've gone up right away. No hemming, no hawing, no 'lets sit down and see if we can't arrive at a consensus' philosophy sessions.For as awful a president as Bush was, he didn't suffer from that 'paralysis of analysis' thing that pretty much defines Hyde Park intellectual types. In situations like this, decisiveness is called for. Hussein lacks that.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/g...kandi_ROV2.html

[Jeepster80125 0]

What frosts my ass here is that they knew from almost day 1 that this was going to be catastrophic. It doesn't take a particularly nimble pattern of thought to arrive at the conclusion that the USACE would be needed at virtually every step in this operation, from preventive measures to head off landfall to attacking the leak itself at the source. That's what the USACE is; they're a big braintrust we throw at really, really hard problems to ensure they're solved in the best way possible. The USACE 'batsignal' should've gone up right away. No hemming, no hawing, no 'lets sit down and see if we can't arrive at a consensus' philosophy sessions.For as awful a president as Bush was, he didn't suffer from that 'paralysis of analysis' thing that pretty much defines Hyde Park intellectual types. In situations like this, decisiveness is called for. Hussein lacks that.

well said.

[akoff 0]

What frosts my ass here is that they knew from almost day 1 that this was going to be catastrophic. It doesn't take a particularly nimble pattern of thought to arrive at the conclusion that the USACE would be needed at virtually every step in this operation, from preventive measures to head off landfall to attacking the leak itself at the source. That's what the USACE is; they're a big braintrust we throw at really, really hard problems to ensure they're solved in the best way possible. The USACE 'batsignal' should've gone up right away. No hemming, no hawing, no 'lets sit down and see if we can't arrive at a consensus' philosophy sessions.For as awful a president as Bush was, he didn't suffer from that 'paralysis of analysis' thing that pretty much defines Hyde Park intellectual types. In situations like this, decisiveness is called for. Hussein lacks that.

and this wasn't expected? This is what you get most of the time you place a person in charge who has never run anything...it is why Senators tend to be poor Presidents...they like to talk about things, set up an investigation and determine how "solve" the problem. they do great job reading the prompter though.5 more months till mid terms and 2.5 years till we get a do over.

[mk 11]

I see this complaint a lot, and it seems a bit silly. Crony capitalism doesn't work under the best of circumstances; socialism doesn't work under the best of circumstances; the only system that has shown any ability to work over any time period is free markets and rule of law. Everything else is a distant second. So I don't see how saying that socialists and crony capitalists corrupt the one system that works is any kind of indictment of the one system that works. What is the alternative? To just give up and turn the system over to parasites and criminals?

the alternative is to recognize that in the real world, power, in all forms, corrupts, and regulation becomes necessary if systems run unfettered. the modern american system, as bloated and grotesque as it can be, achieves the closest thing to a realistic, workable balance in my opinion.i leave you to consider schlesinger:"Liberalism in America, has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state." -- from "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans" (1956), from The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

i leave you to consider schlesinger:

Dirty Commie, imo.

[Balloon guy 158]

Dirty Commie, imo.

Isn't he married to Laura?

[hblask 1]

the alternative is to recognize that in the real world, power, in all forms, corrupts, and regulation becomes necessary if systems run unfettered. the modern american system, as bloated and grotesque as it can be, achieves the closest thing to a realistic, workable balance in my opinion.

Libertarians are not opposed to regulation; you may be thinking of anarchists. That is different. Libertarians are the ONLY people that consistently recognizes the corrupting influence of power. Saying "well, they're going to be corrupt anyway, so let's give them more power" is, to me, a depressing, defeatist attitude. I can't even imagine being so pessimistic. I think that when faced with a problem, the correct answer is to propose solutions, not just say "oh well, we lost, let's give them the keys."

i leave you to consider schlesinger:"Liberalism in America, has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state." -- from "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans" (1956), from The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962).

Everything about this is just a shallow justification for saying "it's my turn to drive, give me the keys. Never mind that I don't know how."The notion that greater complexity requires a tighter grip is laughable. It has never worked that way in history. When faced with complexity, the correct response is to push decisions to the lowest level, not to centralize it into the hands of a few.

[nutzbuster 7]

Anyone seen the environmental Nobel prize festooned Al Gore lately?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Anyone seen the environmental Nobel prize festooned Al Gore lately?

I think Tipper got it in the divorce.

[mk 11]

Everything about this is just a shallow justification for saying "it's my turn to drive, give me the keys. Never mind that I don't know how."The notion that greater complexity requires a tighter grip is laughable. It has never worked that way in history. When faced with complexity, the correct response is to push decisions to the lowest level, not to centralize it into the hands of a few.

working backwards: if you push decisions to the lowest level, i think that is exactly centralizing it into the hands of a few, as you say, so i'm confused by what you're trying to say there. next, do you think that shifting an economy from agrarian to industrial with no regulation whatsoever would've gone perfectly? are you not a student of history and therefore unaware of what actually happened in this country around the turn of the 20th century?i don't think it's an attempt to drive, it's merely an attempt to say, "what you're doing is more harmful than good if you continue doing it in this manner. if we are more rational in the utilization of our resources it will likely improve conditions." checks y balances homey

[JoeyJoJo 18]

working backwards: if you push decisions to the lowest level, i think that is exactly centralizing it into the hands of a few, as you say, so i'm confused by what you're trying to say there.

Meaning pushing down from federal to state to county to city to neighborhood to family...Federal level is 10 people making the decisions for a million people.State level is 10 groups of 10 people making the decisions for a 100,000 people each....Family level is 4 people making the decisions for 4 people.Something like that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Meaning pushing down from federal to state to county to city to neighborhood to family...Federal level is 10 people making the decisions for a million people.State level is 10 groups of 10 people making the decisions for a 100,000 people each....Family level is 4 people making the decisions for 4 people.Something like that.

From the book of Exodus Chapter 18 7 So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. They greeted each other and then went into the tent. 8 Moses told his father-in-law about everything the LORD had done to Pharaoh and the Egyptians for Israel's sake and about all the hardships they had met along the way and how the LORD had saved them. 9 Jethro was delighted to hear about all the good things the LORD had done for Israel in rescuing them from the hand of the Egyptians. 10 He said, "Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." 12 Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God. 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?" 15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws." 17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

[hblask 1]

working backwards: if you push decisions to the lowest level, i think that is exactly centralizing it into the hands of a few, as you say, so i'm confused by what you're trying to say there.

So you think that Obama knows better how to fix my program than I do? Interesting theory.

next, do you think that shifting an economy from agrarian to industrial with no regulation whatsoever would've gone perfectly?

I'm not sure why you keep asking this; I've already explained that I an not an anarchist. As to the types of rules, mostly the old ones would work: don't steal, don't harm, don't cheat.

are you not a student of history and therefore unaware of what actually happened in this country around the turn of the 20th century?

LOL

i don't think it's an attempt to drive, it's merely an attempt to say, "what you're doing is more harmful than good if you continue doing it in this manner. if we are more rational in the utilization of our resources it will likely improve conditions." checks y balances homey

I don't think you understand the phrase "checks and balances" as applied to our system of government.

[Jeepster80125 0]

http://bp.concerts.com/gom/MakingitRight.htmAnother point of view:On The Limitations Of The Tort System In Dealing With Artificial Catastrophe, And Why Americans Should Boycott BP, f/k/a British Petroleum: Your Instructions Follow.This is another one of those posts in which the header is longer than the actual post. Nonetheless, it’s important. A few thoughts:1) As Walter Olson points out, President Obama’s assertion that he is going to make BP pay for all of the costs of its negligence is ludicrous. President Obama is lying to people in the gulf region, most of whom are injured because they’ve lost their jobs.1a) The tort system won’t allow those people to recover from BP. A business owner, or a corporation, which goes under as a result of another’s negligence may recover its present net worth, an amortization of income after deduction for costs over a reasonable period of time.1b) Many of the people hurt most, the employees of fishermen, shrimpers, hotels, restaurants, and the like, who will lose their livelihoods, have no cause of action against BP. They are merely costs, their salaries or commissions to be deducted from their employers’ revenue forecasts. That’s right. The more they made before the spill, the less their employers recover. They get bupkis.1c) As if I haven’t made it plain, the employees, as opposed to the owners, have to get another job, move to a part of the country that isn’t wrecked, or go on welfare. You will pay for the welfare, not the government, and not BP. You will also pay for the crime and natural blight (how does one value the extinction of loggerhead sea turtles, which may well occur as a result of this spill? The courts won’t) created by this displacement.2) Everyone who promises compensation is lying. Unfortunately, most of the people (the employees) who are told that “BP will pay” hear that they’ll recover the income lost as a result of their lost jobs, unless they’re cynics (probably most of the people in the gulf region are cynics now). The people propagating this lie know that’s what the suckers hear. They also know that that isn’t what they’re, technically, saying.3) To make BP pay for these “non-consequential” damages, the government would have to upend tort law, federalizing it across all 50 states and also passing an “ex post facto” law which would require a constitutional amendment. This would, unfortunately, wreak more economic havoc than the oil spill. Far more. So it isn’t happening. Obama, a constitutional law professor as he pointed out endlessly during his campaign, knows this.4) All human morality is founded on punishment for crimes, and compensation for wrongdoing. Therefore, as an American, as a human, it is your duty to boycott BP in perpetuity. Otherwise, the company will not be punished. BP will not go to jail, nor will its executives. BP will not pay full compensation for the damage its negligence caused, far from it. It is your moral duty to supply the punishment. The government won’t do it. BP won’t commit seppuku. You have to do it.5) But what, as NPR pointed out during a disturbing story aired this morning, of BP’s employees and franshisees? You do know that BP doesn’t own a gas station in the US? It’s all franchisees, like independent contractors aboard the Death Star.There’s the poser. You have to hurt innocent people, in order to carry out your moral duty to hurt BP. Should that stop you? No.The law, though it doesn’t provide you with an adequate remedy against BP, does provide a way out. The concept of “mitigation of damages.” Now ordinarily, the duty to mitigate damages applies to claimants. A claimant who refuses to go to the doctor, to get medical treatment which will end his pain, deserves not our sympathy. He deserves nothing.In this case, you’re a claimant. But there’s no reason we can’t reverse that idea, as moral actors. We can minimize the pain of BP’s franchisees and their employees. We can buy cigarettes, coffee, soft drinks, and junk food from them. In fact, if you see a BP franchisee, you should go out of your way to stop in and buy a small bag of potato chips. And you you should tell the guy at the register that you’re doing it to help him. And that you’re never buying another gallon of gas from his station, as long as it’s affiliated with BP.You should do this for the rest of your life. Because you’ll be paying for the consequences of BP’s negligence for the rest of your life.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

1) Hurting BP doesn't help anyone on the Gulf Region. Nothing will. The only thing that can help them is to pay it forward, to improve regulations, and to help before the fact the next group of people who could potentially be hurt by another spill.2) Who's to say that BP is any better or worse than, say, Exxon. If I don't use BP gas, I'm forced to use gas from another company. That company may have practices as bad as those of BP, but they simply may not have gotten as unlucky as BP. 3) If we really want to rise together and enact massive group action, why don't we do it against all oil, not just that coming from BP? Why don't we get serious about reducing how much petroleum we use, about buying better cars, making more efficient buildings, using better light bulbs, driving less. Why don't we actually put pressure on companies to reduce oil usage through a carbon tax, and why don't we get serious about requirements for Miles per gallon on cars?4) This will most likely end up with a lot of people angry, a few people truly hurt, a small group of scapegoats taking the blame, and no one actually sacrificing to make the world better.

[El Guapo 8]

3) If we really want to rise together and enact massive group action, why don't we do it against all oil, not just that coming from BP? Why don't we get serious about reducing how much petroleum we use, about buying better cars, making more efficient buildings, using better light bulbs, driving less. Why don't we actually put pressure on companies to reduce oil usage through a carbon tax, and why don't we get serious about requirements for Miles per gallon on cars?

Because the majority of the people don't want most of what you said above.

[dapokerbum 0]

4) This will most likely end up with a lot of people angry, a few people truly hurt, a small group of scapegoats taking the blame, and no one actually sacrificing to make the world better.

QFT

[strategy 4]

Because the majority of the people don't want most of what you said above when oil is $75/barrel

[Balloon guy 158]

There will also be a bunch of fishermen in other areas who's business's will shoot through the roof because of the demand going up for fresh oil free seafood.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Because the majority of the people don't want most of what you said above.

Right, but then again, the majority of people are stupid. I don't base my knowledge of what is right and what we should do on what the majority want. The majority complain when our tapping into the earth for oil goes wrong, but don't do anything to lessen our need to tap into the Earth in the first place (or worse, to send money to a bunch of crazy religious wack jobs who sometimes branch off into super wack jobs and come over here and blow stuff up for absolutely no reason).Also, possibly global warming, but it's extremely easy to ignore that and have a solid-as-rock case for reducing oil consumption, so I will do as much.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There will also be a bunch of fishermen in other areas who's business's will shoot through the roof because of the demand going up for fresh oil free seafood.

Which is a nice twist on the broken window fallacy. I'm sure the demand for window cleaners will go up if I go around town and spray oil over everybody's house.