Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?
in [Technical]
|
From: Scott Dorsey on 11 Jul 2010 23:01 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:09:21 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>>The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama. >> >> You want some kind of miracle here? You want the president to just wave >> his arms and make it all go away? I'd like that too, but I don't think >> that is going to happen and I don't expect it. > >Nope. Not what I'm expecting. But there were plenty expecting it of Bush >during Katrina. Obungler could have accepted assistance from others. You expect immediate response from a government that is specifically designed to be slow and careful about making decisions. That slowness and deliberation is what makes the American government so successful. It has a downside in times of crisis. Sorry about that. >>>Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because >>>Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious." >> >> Well, in the case of Katrina some of the problem was actually caused by >> government-funded and promoted rerouting of waterways and land >> reclamation. > >So, it was Bush's fault? Nahh, it was Truman and Eisenhower's fault, really. Although the whole notion that we can change huge forces of nature is very powerful and it is popular with right and left alike. Read some of Mark Twain's "Life Along the Missisippi" about how unstable the river was back a century ago. If anything, the alterations made have improved things a lot since then. Some of the alterations, like mrgo, and like building on reclaimed land, weren't so good. >> You can argue that some of the current problem is caused by a lack of >> proper government regulation of drilling, but I think that's really just >> trying to move the blame around. This particular disaster was exclusively >> the result of BP's corner-cutting. > >The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the >explosion. That's nice but not really all that helpful, especially given some of what we now know with the lead-up to the break. I feel maybe a little sorry for the folks on that inspection team now, but not all that sorry. >> But, just like Katrina, it happened, and there isn't going to be any >> wonderful miracle that will make everything go away. It's going to be >> ugly, and it's going to take a lot of time, and there really is not much >> that the government can do that will make things better. > >Exactly. You know that, I know that. But it's funny that the bunch that >would have been howling at Bush are silent now. No, instead a different bunch are howling at Obama. But it's the same howling, just from a different quarter. >That's the only real problem I have. They know Obama can't really do >anything about it, just like Bush couldn't. Well, Obama at least is trying hard to look like he cares, which is more than Bush did. It's all any of them can really do, but it's important to put on a good face and do the Churchill bit. You could argue that that sort of symbolic stuff is really the most important job of the president even if they really doesn't directly get anything done. And... let's face it... FEMA is about the most incompetent operation around. It's been that way through plenty of Republican and Democratic administrations both, and I don't see it changing any time soon. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 11 Jul 2010 23:30 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:01:13 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> > wrote: >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:09:21 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>>>The real problem here is P_B: Preident (o)Bama. >>> >>> You want some kind of miracle here? You want the president to just >>> wave his arms and make it all go away? I'd like that too, but I don't >>> think that is going to happen and I don't expect it. >> >>Nope. Not what I'm expecting. But there were plenty expecting it of Bush >>during Katrina. Obungler could have accepted assistance from others. > > You expect immediate response from a government that is specifically > designed to be slow and careful about making decisions. That slowness and > deliberation is what makes the American government so successful. It has > a downside in times of crisis. Sorry about that. > >>>>Why are the lefties ranting about this like they did Katrina? Because >>>>Obungler went there and ate some seafood? "It...was...delicious." >>> >>> Well, in the case of Katrina some of the problem was actually caused by >>> government-funded and promoted rerouting of waterways and land >>> reclamation. >> >>So, it was Bush's fault? > > Nahh, it was Truman and Eisenhower's fault, really. Although the whole > notion that we can change huge forces of nature is very powerful and it is > popular with right and left alike. > > Read some of Mark Twain's "Life Along the Missisippi" about how unstable > the river was back a century ago. If anything, the alterations made have > improved things a lot since then. Some of the alterations, like mrgo, and > like building on reclaimed land, weren't so good. > >>> You can argue that some of the current problem is caused by a lack of >>> proper government regulation of drilling, but I think that's really >>> just trying to move the blame around. This particular disaster was >>> exclusively the result of BP's corner-cutting. >> >>The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the >>explosion. > > That's nice but not really all that helpful, especially given some of what > we now know with the lead-up to the break. I feel maybe a little sorry > for the folks on that inspection team now, but not all that sorry. > >>> But, just like Katrina, it happened, and there isn't going to be any >>> wonderful miracle that will make everything go away. It's going to be >>> ugly, and it's going to take a lot of time, and there really is not >>> much that the government can do that will make things better. >> >>Exactly. You know that, I know that. But it's funny that the bunch that >>would have been howling at Bush are silent now. > > No, instead a different bunch are howling at Obama. But it's the same > howling, just from a different quarter. > >>That's the only real problem I have. They know Obama can't really do >>anything about it, just like Bush couldn't. > > Well, Obama at least is trying hard to look like he cares, which is more > than Bush did. It's all any of them can really do, but it's important to > put on a good face and do the Churchill bit. You could argue that that > sort of symbolic stuff is really the most important job of the president > even if they really doesn't directly get anything done. Sure beats the pics of Bush playing a guitar... Yeah, response is the big thing, and about the only thing a President can really do (in all fairness, if I were the President and someone came up to me three days after a similar disaster, I probably would have said "No thanks", too, and kept a close eye on BP. However, I would have contacted those who offered help once it was seen BP was having trouble. Oil skimmers are most effective when the oil is thick...) > > And... let's face it... FEMA is about the most incompetent operation > around. It's been that way through plenty of Republican and Democratic > administrations both, and I don't see it changing any time soon. --scott
From: chuckcar on 11 Jul 2010 23:44 Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote in news:MPG.26a3d78347cb075b989689(a)news.eternal-september.org: > In article <HK-dnfTFaNj3S6TRnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d(a)bright.net>, > "sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net says... >> > > I agree with all you've said. > With the caveat that it's hard to separate fact and fiction at this > point. > Anybody mentioning the "Jones Act" is automatically suspect in my > book. Irrelevant, and spoken from either ignorance or politics. > All these so-called "offers of aid" are commercial offers. > There is no reason in the world to think the Dutch are experts on Gulf > of Mexico oil spills. > Like it or not, BP and the other oil industry experts working with > them, are the experts. > And the Army Corp of Engineers are the experts on the estuaries of the > Gulf. The Mississippi river and the Gulf fisheries and wetlands are > not the North Sea. > Having said all that, in my opinion the government never showed the > "sense of urgency" this disaster required. > More resources should have been applied earlier, whether foreign or > not, expensive or not. BP will foot the bill in any case, but even > that isn't important when it comes to saving our natural resources. > Even now the command structure isn't clearly defined or evidenced. > The oil hitting the LA marshes was preventable. > The issue of dispersants has not been properly aired, and there has > been an overall lack of transparency in the entire effort. > This really called for a military command operation with strict lines > of accountability, daily press conferences, etc, etc. > There is no excuse for the confusion reigning in the LA parishes and > the seeming lack of communications between the different parties > working to prevent oil invasion and clean up where it has invaded. > The buck stops with Obama, and IMO he has failed here. > I'll wait for the studies and books to come out before coming to a > final opinion, but for now it just looks to be barely avoiding being > called a plain old clusterfuck. > There's one thing that comes to mind to me with the above: Isn't it possible that the authority and responsibility to do the clean up rests with BP and no one else to the extent that the government simply *can't* get involved or remove them from such? -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: jim on 12 Jul 2010 08:17 "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote: > > Yeah, response is the big thing, and about the only thing a President can > really do (in all fairness, if I were the President and someone came up to > me three days after a similar disaster, I probably would have said "No > thanks", too, and kept a close eye on BP. However, I would have contacted > those who offered help once it was seen BP was having trouble. Oil > skimmers are most effective when the oil is thick...) Except that this is all based on your drunken hallucinations. You make up fiction rather than deal with real facts. When did the President respond to any offers of help with "No thanks"? When was oil in the Gulf any thicker than it is right now? Here is a live feed from the ship "Boa Deep C": mms://a214.l9789245685.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/214/97892/v0001/reflector:31499.asx?bkup=31500 That live video feed is from a Norwegian ship with a Norwegian crew that has been involved in the subsea work at the site of the spill since April. Many other foreign ships have been long involved in this including Pemex oil skimmers from Mexico. As for the effectiveness of the response. The BP gusher is now and has been through out June leaking at least as much oil every week as the entire Exxon Valdez oil spill did. Yet the damage to shoreline from the Exxon Valdez oil spill was 100 times worse than the damage that has occurred so far to the Gulf of Mexico shoreline. After the Exxon Valdez spill there was 1300 miles of coastline that was buried in crude oil.
From: hls on 12 Jul 2010 08:25
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:5nu_n.11313 > > The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the > explosion. This was not a rig safety problem.. It arose because of technically questionable (well, no longer questionable, I guess) operational factors. For example, your car could pass a safety inspection, but you could drive recklessly and kill a bunch of people, destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, etc. The fault here, IMO, lies at the feet of BP. Obama, though I detest his administration's methods, cannot be blamed for this. |