G) Worth trying
While I can certainly be persuaded that there are causes worth fighting for, I’m having trouble figuring out why these particular oil rigs are such a cause. Oil drilling goes on all over the planet, every day. It seems like a rather mundane activity. Why is risking life and limb to try (and almost certainly fail) to impede the operation of one more oil rig the hill you want to die on, or more likely want other people to die on?
Considering the Trump policy seems to be aimed at nothing more than pissing off states that didn’t vote for him, why shouldn’t those states respond somehow?
ETA: I also recall that you were opposed to Bears Ears being designated a protected area. Nature reserves are mundane things, why oppose them at all?
I doubt you’ve got much actual evidence to support that theory, but setting that aside for a moment, I don’t really mind if the states “respond somehow”, so long as that response is lawful and unlikely to endanger life and limb. Cuomo’s “plan” appears to fail both those criteria.
This is not unlike some of the discussions we’ve had about protesters: You want to protest? Great, have at it. You want to do it at midnight on the freeway? :rolleyes:
Cuomo’s idea is closer to holding a protest on I-5 in the dark, and just as fraught with danger.
I’ve laid out my reasons elsewhere, but I’ll just add here that my opposition to them didn’t involve directly endangering people’s lives or putting my body “upon the gears and upon the wheels”.
I have an even better scenario. Cuomo is not, in fact, issuing letters of marque. Being as the act that you claimed existed doesn’t exist, there is no evidence of insanity, crimes, drug use, or lies on Cuomo’s part.
How likely is it that anyone’s going to die with this? I get your point, but even that hyperbole is still over the top for a protest involving civil disobedience.
Actually sabotaging equipment, as in Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang, that would be a “hill to die on” depending on the level of risk and severity of the consequences.
Perhaps you lack the courage of your convictions.
God damn them all. I was told we’d cruise the seas for American (black) gold.
Are you suggesting that there should be legislation to absolve oil companies of any and all negligence if they kill a protester?
I’m not clear from any of the articles I’ve read so far that this is actually anything more than a protest on water, as opposed to the Greenpeace-style suicidal assault on corporations that you’re afraid of.
i don’t know where that quote is from. Is it a metaphor, or literal?
And again, what was the context of your views of McVeigh, and why does this cross some line that he didn’t?
If it slows down the process until Trump and his tard army are relics of history, it’s absolutely the right strategy.
Anti-oil, or gas* drilling in place like east coast offshore is definitely mainly NIMBY driven. Some people loosely believe that oil/gas drilling in general could be heavily discouraged everywhere and ‘ingenuity’ would get past that without a major hit to living standards, but that’s nonsense and they only think so because they’ve never seriously looked into it, or read stuff from people not being serious, because they don’t have to be, because it’s not seriously going to happen, nationally or worldwide. A smaller group of people know it would mean a major reduction in living standards but are still for mainly stopping using hydrocarbons soon, IOW there are some hardcore, consistent people.
That said, ‘NIMBY’ doesn’t absolutely mean selfish in some inappropriate way. An area deciding that a coastal tourism industry and shore property values are more important than energy development is a judgment call, part of federalism (subject obviously to how far from the coast, at least legally speaking). And the fracking ban is definitely legal, but I have more of a problem with condemning the economic dessert, basically, of the lower tier of western NYS to stay that way when similar places in PA have gotten significant new economic opportunity from gas development. Overall energy policy should be national. And if it’s not national policy to discourage oil/gas, which it’s not, and again few people would really be for that if they understood all the implications, I don’t think climate change is a reasonable basis for a state policy. Use of the area for one thing (resort, tourism) rather than another (oil drilling) to the extent incompatible, OK that’s a debate. But little is going on economically in the part of NYS over the Marcellus Shale. That’s not as true for the coasts of Long Island, which is basically NYS’s coast.
*Cuomo has banned ‘fracking’ gas drilling in NYS and in that case it’s pretty apparent there is gas to be had which is recoverable at current prices, since major PA production areas are near the NY/PA border; with oil it’s somewhat speculative how attractive NY offshore oil opportunities would be, and depending on prevailing prices.
I don’t know if you haven’t read the thread or if you’re being deliberately obtuse. In post #3 I noted that “letters of marque” was a joke. Perhaps you’d like to consider it a rhetorical flair / hyperbole. Anyways, the act that I claimed existed is this:
Do you think that’s a solid, well-thought-out plan? I don’t. I think that Cuomo suggested it is an indication of some mental defect on his part.
It depends on how aggressively the protesters try to “block” or “interfere” and how tolerant of their actions the oil workers / Coast Guard are. There’s no way to know until it actually happens. If it’s politely floating off to the side with pre-printed signs and a megaphone, rather unlikely. If they employ Sea-Shepherd-like tactics of actively placing themselves in the path of larger vessels / ramming them, quite a bit more likely.
Perhaps I realize that some things aren’t worth anyone dying over, even though I might prefer them to be done differently.
If you don’t have any evidence that I ever suggested it, it’s probably a reasonable assumption that I did not.
My two sources from the OP used the words “block” and “interfere”. Those certainly seem to imply something more active than just “a protest on the water”, don’t you think?
It’s from some dead Commie, I think. See Jacquernagy’s post #8. It’s hard to say how literally we should take “… I agree with that wholeheartedly when it comes to protecting the environment.”
Lighting yourself on fire in front of the White House might accomplish that (it’s got at least as good of prospects as Cuomo’s “citizen fleet” IMHO). Still think it’s the right strategy?
Do the States have the right to regulate (including, possibly, banning) drilling off of their coasts? Should they have that right? If not, why not?
It seems to me that if the state has prohibited offshore drilling, then it’s the oil companies that are breaking the law, here, and the citizen fleets are the ones upholding the law.
Boy, not gonna touch the McVeigh question with a ten foot pole, eh?
It seems off-topic for this thread about Cuomo. If you want to start a thread about it, go for it. If it seems interesting, I may join in.
I don’t know the specifics, but I think it’s a reasonable guess that the area Trump is allowing drilling in is one that is under the control of the federal government.
Perhaps, but I don’t believe they do, and I’m pretty sure that the reasons are similar to why Utah can’t just tell the Feds to GTFO.
If it were truly against the law, the state shouldn’t need a “citizen fleet”, they just need a hearing in front of a judge.