Macgiver, your cite leaves a lot to be desired in terms of objective news reporting, being clearly a partisan advocate. As witness the following:
Did you not notice, or think we wouldn’t? One “tsk, tsk” assigned to your Permanent Record.
You know, elucidator. I was thinking this morning just how deeply dead is the old maxim “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Now we’ve got Republicans apologizing to BP for the president’s request that the company set up an escrow fund?
That’s beyond partisan, all the way to nuts.
I don’t mean to jump on the blame train here, but:
(from Magiver’s link)
“The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean.”
I’d have expected a regulation like that to be overruled in the circumstances. I’m ready to call it a failure that it was not. (If indeed that is the case.)
I’m not as convinced on the berm situation. That seems far trickier.
As for the speech, I didn’t watch or read it, but from what I gather it was too little too late. It’s going to take a lot more than one dirty Gulf (with options for speeches!) to convince people to consume less, drive less, change our habits, etc. Talk of cleanup, regulation of drilling, punishing BP, etc just addresses how we can get back to the status quo of sucking the earth dry.
Not only that, but if Obama had intervened, then BP would come back and say it’s the government’s fault that the leak wasn’t fixed and refuse to pay damages. BP was and is obligated to fix the oil spill. Kicking them out at the outset would have given them arguments to mitigate their responsibility.
Similarly, BP was and is obligated to contain the spill. Early assumption of that duty by the government would also give BP arguments to duck its financial responsibilities.
You know, you make regulations that can be overlooked or overruled on a whim and you end up getting the kind of scandal ridden Minerals Management Service that we had for the past decade. I know lots of people voted for that governmental model, but are you really sure that’s what you want when the livelihood of a multistate region is at stake, as it is today?
Yes, I think allowing water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean might not fix the problem. Which is oil in the ocean…
If it was really just a limited “spill”, the pumpers might calculate that the ocean could handle some oil, spread more widely. But the well is still pumping oil directly into the ocean–down deep.
When he promised that we would not only restore LA to it’s previous state but actually improve it I just plain winced. Has he lost touch with reality?
Couldn’t he have just said, “We are doing our best?”
For what blasphemy? A news story can’t point out the obvious now? The skimmers were rejected for over month and now they’re being sent over. Better late then never. This goes into the Presidential DOH column.
I don’t think you’re understanding the function…
“These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil.”
The dirty water released is still an improvement. As the ship cycles out more water, it fills its tank with more ‘pure’ oil … which is then taken away from the ocean. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
And Squink, yes, I want room for an exception to be made at the very highest level during the nation’s worst environmental disaster ever. Not “overlooked and overruled on a whim” though, thanks. If it would have to require congressional approval, so be it. And yes, I understand the MMS has been head-up-ass for years, probably under both parties. In my mind they share a healthy amount of responsibility for the spill.
I have to say that I agree with you (although I watched a speech re-run, didn’t read it). This was after hearing Olbermann and some others rail on how bad it was…I was expecting much worse. What I got from Obama was a clear statement of purpose (4 points), each point addressed (fairly) quickly and concisely. I wholeheartedly wish politicians spoke that way all the time.
To be honest, I don’t think the speech was particularly warranted. But it seems that my view doesn’t jibe with the many who are clamoring for…well, whatever it is they’re clamoring for…
Clearly, the offering is an opinion, derived from news, and not “news” itself, which is how you presented it, perhaps unknowingly. Having views and biases is not inherently wrong, but when you are aware of it, you should acknowledge it when you offer it as data for a persuasion.
For instance, I make frequent use of sites I find reliable, especially ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo. They always include the “ground zero” sources for their paraphrase of news, so I am assured that the raw facts are available, and verifiable. Nonetheless, I take pains to advise the reader that I am aware that my site has a center-leftish viewpoint. It is a sign of respect for my reader, and a gesture to assure that I am not trying to pull a slow one.
Some people find this habit annoying. I respond with typical and characteristic Texan flexibility and submission.
I have no problem with that. I try to look at what I’m quoting but not to the extent you do. Kudos for doing it. Couldn’t really find a reference to the Dutch skimmer delay without a load of commentary.
It was my understanding that the international laws had something to do with why they turned down the Dutch’s offer. I am no expert on this, so I know I can be wrong.
I don’t think people will be satisfied until he swims down there himself and stops the leak. Even if he’s driving the boat that contains the people and equipment that stops the leak people will say he should have done more.
He can’t swim. He’ll have to walk.
'Course, his biggest detractors would expect failure there also – as they insist that Obama supporters think he walks on water, not under it. 
If you’re referring to the Jones Act that is a US law that applies to ships. This was a system that attaches to a ship and it was airlifted over from the Netherlands. The reason it was first rejected is because it sucks up both oil and water and returns the water which is still contaminated. Somehow the EPA couldn’t grasp the logic of pulling over 80% of the oil out of the water. The Coast Guard is doing the same thing with oil sucking barges as we speak. The link isn’t very informative because it talks of a need to make sure there are life vests and fire extinguishers on board which would take 2 minutes to verify. Sounds like a boat certification issue to me. You’d think in an emergency situation like this we could expedite it or just issue waivers using a little common sense.
“It looks like you’re finishing up a speech! Would you like help?”
And (more than likely) BP’s lawyers will insist that the money be taken as a credit against income taxes…so the US taxpayers will actually be paying!:mad: