Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?
in [Technical]
|
From: Scott Dorsey on 13 Jul 2010 09:37 Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >In article <i1g6s1$fil$1(a)panix2.panix.com>, kludge(a)panix.com says... >> >> If I were president, my first thought would be to keep my mouth shut and >> distance myself from the disaster as thoroughly as possible. > >You'd be very wrong. When you can't do anything about a thing, making it look like you can do something about it is just going to cause a lot of disappointed people to be upset at you. >> But if it >> were too late to do that, what would you do? > >Military command coordination of all Gulf efforts. >General Honore would probably do as Command, but there are others. >Bring Schwartzkoff out of retirement to do it. >You get the idea. That's what Obama has done. I think it's a lousy idea; we now have a bunch of military (CG in this case) folks in charge of an operation that they really know nothing about. But I agree it sounded like a good idea and it may still turn out to be one. >Conscript all leading oil experts to work with and >advise the military command as to action in killing the well, >use or non-use of dispersants, skimming oil, and strategies to keep it >offshore. For the most part this has been done also, but the thing is that the experts don't agree, and really nobody knows all that much about how to deal with the problem. >It's their patriotic duty. >Local governments and their input go into the mix. >High visibility/transparency with press conferences, etc. >Over kill on all resources. >NOBODY would be able to slam the effort. >Then of course you bill BP for all of it. >What's the problem? What you describe is pretty much what is being done, and it's not working. Press conferences are all very nice, but how do we fix the problem? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Jul 2010 11:23 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:44:58 +0000, Tegger wrote: > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote > in news:54Q_n.30784$Ls1.17526(a)newsfe11.iad: > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:51:34 +0000, Tegger wrote: >> >> >>> I was never a fan of G.W. Bush, but just imagine the bloodthirsty >>> screaming that would have been aimed at him if he'd been president when >>> this happened. Remember Katrina? This would have been /way/ worse. But >>> Obama? Well, he gets a gentle pass. >> >> Exactly what I was going to say when Bob Cooper comes back at my last >> response to his post. >> >> And, as far as Dutch skimmers making a difference in the early days? >> Well, we'll never know, will we? > > > > > They are not "skimmers". The use of the term "skimmers" confuses the > superior Dutch technology with the far-inferior US technology. > > Did you even /bother/ to read the article I referenced? I'm not sure. > > PLEASE, actually do read it. Read it slowly and carefully. > <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html> Thanks, but no thanks... > > > >> Yup. If Bush had dragged his heels over this the way Obungler has, it'd >> be all we'd be hearing about. >> >> > > > It wouldn't have mattered what Bush did. He would have had his head on a > gibbet no matter what. And Obungler doesn't because...?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Jul 2010 11:27 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:55:38 +0000, Tegger wrote: > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> > wrote in news:_6Q_n.30786$Ls1.25309(a)newsfe11.iad: > > > >> I'm afraid that any effectiveness they may have been brought about by >> deploying early is something we will never know. >> >> >> >> > > Hachi, try reading the article ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the first > few sentences. > <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html> OH! I understand now! Water in the oil is preferrable to oil in the water!!! Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico. Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html#ixzz0tZnwPh2x
From: Tegger on 13 Jul 2010 18:34 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in news:yB%_n.31016$Ls1.28476(a)newsfe11.iad: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:55:38 +0000, Tegger wrote: > >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >> wrote in news:_6Q_n.30786$Ls1.25309(a)newsfe11.iad: >> >> >> >>> I'm afraid that any effectiveness they may have been brought about >>> by deploying early is something we will never know. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Hachi, try reading the article ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the >> first few sentences. >> <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html >> > > > OH! I understand now! Water in the oil is preferrable to oil in the > water!!! The US government's approach can be likened to a starving man refusing a stale loaf of bread, and demanding a fresh-baked French baguette instead, even if the stale loaf is all that will be available until /after/ he dies of starvation. The US government was very happy (just like after Katrina) to allow bureaucratic demands and arbitrary rules to override public safety and common sense. -- Tegger
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Jul 2010 19:37
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:34:08 +0000, Tegger wrote: > The US government was very happy (just like after Katrina) to allow > bureaucratic demands and arbitrary rules to override public safety and > common sense. <SNERK!> You said "US government" and "common sense" in the same sentance... |