Here are the pix.
Here are the videos.
Some people amaze me…On one hand they do not want the government to do anything against (or for) private ownership,big companies, then when the government doesn’t step in and take over they complain that the government isn’t doing enough. BP is a private industry and should be made to pay the damages. Katrina was not the fault of a private company like The oil spill is. There is a difference.
That’s a legitimate question. The early tests using nuclear explosives for demolition were done a long time ago and the people with the expertise are certainly all retired. I don’t know who said it but somebody from the government said they didn’t have the expertise to do it.
Underwater is not the problem, under the the water is a big deal. Not sure how they would deliver it. That would be new territory. It would have to be shoved down a riser pipe with a drill pipe against a bearing. That would have to be tested on land first. It would be a big deal to make this happen and it would take a runaway well to warrant it unless they just detonated one above the well and I don’t see how that would crush the pipe with a shock-wave.
I’m not sure that most of it is relevant to this thread on Energy and the oil spill.
Unfortunately, you also kind of poisoned the well on the other topics by using the non-factual “impeach over a blowjob” argument, so I’m even less desirable to get into that (seriously, I don’t care if the President lies under oath about what they had for breakfast or their favourite Muppet - lying under oath is lying under oath).
Indeed? I can assure you having worked in the industry for about 2 decades that the vast, vast majority of the energy experts working in the field I’ve encountered are highly conservative, and mostly Republican (note I separate the two). The only time I encounter liberal energy experts seems to be folks working for advocacy groups, academics who couldn’t find their way around a power plant with a GPS and a pack of bloodhounds, and anger bloggers with journalism degrees.
I’m willing to drop the ‘impeach over a blowjob’ thing if you’ll give a more complete answer. I suppose this much is a step in the right direction, but it isn’t telling me much. Pleeease?
And, you mean ‘less desirous’. Never describe yourself as ‘less desirable’ 
I don’t mean liberal v conservative energy experts, I mean that most conservatives (or Republicans, distinction noted) are not energy experts. The ones that get the most press seem to me full of hot air. But you don’t, so I’d like to hear your views instead of wading through all the political muck out there.
I don’t know about liberal energy experts, and I don’t claim to be one myself. But I don’t fit your description of the angry blogger either. I didn’t become an engineer myself mainly due to sabotage by evangelicals- I had the exquisite misfortune to attempt to become a scientist surrounded by people who wanted to make me some kind of evangelical Mitt Romney (and now I act like an asshole to ward off celebrity, believe it or not), or else ruin me if I refused. Hardly a supportive environment, and now I’m merely half an engineer. But not the type of person you seem upset about. Ok, now about your views…
If it helps, my 2011 individual federal tax contributions will exceed $20k. I don’t own a GPS, have a journalism degree nor belong to an advocacy group. C’mon Una, I’m worth it.
More on topic, here is a video in which the Admiral of the Coast Guard explains why they do not intend to use a nuke (or conventional explosives) to stop the leak. 6 min video but it only takes 90 seconds or so to get to the point here.
What exactly are you asking me? What you asked before? How my philosophy on religion, wars, perjury, torture, etc compare to those of others?
No, I think the public is nearly hopeless overall for electing people who can be trusted to do the right thing. The sort of people who can’t do long division, check their electric bill, or don’t know that cavemen and dinosaurs were not contemporaries - and yet can quote the entire starting lineup of some stupid assed football team or another - can hardly be trusted to understand any issues more complicated than “they took our jobs!”
I’m not religious, and I believe government should be completely and totally separate from religion. In fact, I believe that religious institutions such as churches should not be exempt from property taxes, and that confessionals should not be privileged information any more than talking to your friend or bartender.
I don’t understand this reference.
I’d vote to impeach Abraham Lincoln himself if he lied under oath about his hat size.
I guess the definition of “mostly” is one which on one side creates friends and on the other side creates piles of bodies. I get what you’re asking; I never supported the invasion of Iraq post-9/11. If we had a sane energy policy of Energy Isolationism and Self-Sufficiency, then we could let the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East which treat women as slaves, as well as tinpot dictatorships like Venezuela, twist in the wind, broke and stuck in third-world mode.
Nope.
One of the most scary developments in my life experience with government.
Um…that depends. What taxes? Under what context? Who’s rich? Obama and his sidekick the odious Joe Biden think I’m “rich”, and yet I sure don’t feel like it. For all that people pay lip service to having a balanced budget, I’m a person who would insist on it if I were President. I’d veto every single non-balanced budget bill that hit my desk, and the Congress could either over-ride me, send a better bill, or else government would shut down and that would just be too goddamn bad. I’m in favor of cutting many tax credits completely, including the deduction for any more than 2 children, the home mortgage deduction, etc. Population can be controlled, and a better solution than pushing the poor to get in over their heads into a house in another housing bubble is to give some general tax relief on other ends so folks in apartments et al. can see some benefit.
Who can back selling out an entire nation to anyone? I also oppose nun beating.
I get that a lot.
You probably don’t like that either.
What I am hoping to get at is some of your positive assertions about the ‘arch-conservative’ position.
Thanks for answering my other points. Looks like I was mostly correct- you don’t identify with the craziness that gets lumped in with ‘conservative’ (or maybe merely ‘Republican’, or even ‘The Right’?) these days. The public noisy conservatives float a lot of crazy ideas, and we don’t hear from types like you. What does ‘conservative’ mean when Una says it?
Ok, healthy disdain for segments of the public. I can dig it. But I can’t tell if you’re a Libertarian or not, so let me rephrase the question: do you think people should try to push Libertarian economic policies on our nation, regardless of whether the public could be made to swallow it?
All right. You and I might get labeled with different political orientation labels, but your stand on this issue is maybe a little stronger than mine. So, if you’re a ‘conservative’ and I’m not, what’s the difference?
It is a ‘famous’ quote by Grover Norquist that has been floating around the anti-tax crowd for some time:
It doesn’t sound like you are that kind of conservative, but I’ll let you tell me. The way he puts it sounds like general hostility to government rather than a fiscal plan.
Really? Ok, that’s interesting. My feeling is the sense that ‘Absolutism is next to Absurdism’ combined with ‘Give me a long enough lever and I can move the Earth.’ Maybe there were lies, but the context for Clinton being in the state of ‘under oath’ was manufactured by political processes, so, devilish as it is, was he really obliged to be a stickler to legal process when he was caught in a what was more accurately a political phenomenon? It is not as if there was a video of him shoplifting, for instance.
If the answer is ‘always yes’, it sounds like a formula for setting people up.
But that’s all right. I don’t want to confront you, I just want to discover what your position is.
Who’s rich? Good question. The feeling I got during the Bush years was that the wealthier you were, the bigger tax cut you’d get. Ergo, ‘tax cuts for the rich’.
It’s going to hurt if you get your way, but it is probably going to hurt no matter what. What else do we do, turn into Greece? Is it all an end to tax credits, or would you go after the military? Entitlements? All and everything? Aren’t you afraid of reducing the spending power the middle class? Fair to say you’re a fiscal-responsibility hard-liner?
I bet. That’s why I’m bothering you so much. The messages I see coming out of what I think of as the conservative camp (and maybe my terms are wrong, I consider the Pubs, the Libertarians, the Teabaggers and others to be flavors of conservative) are not what you seem to stand for. Except the hard-line fiscal responsibility part I guess.
Anyway, if you’ve had enough I’ll just drop it. Thanks for taking the time 
Why not demonizing BP and the oil industry? BP has lied every step of the way. They have continuously lied about the amount of oil coming out. They have put dispersants in the oil so it does not look so bad. They put a gag order on anyone who is working for them in cleanup. They have tried to suppress pictures of oil covered wild life . There are just so many now ,that they can no longer cover it up. They have not demonstrated a sense of responsibility and a firm purpose of cleaning it up. They have not been open and honest.
No. I think government has a place in many areas of our nation, provided each agency:
- Operates and adheres to the law.
- Is run in a sane and scientific manner.
- Shows responsible fiscal management, with a constant, never-ending goal towards optimizing efficiency and reducing costs - so long as core goals are met.
- Cracks down with brutal, BRUTAL severity upon employee theft, bribes, other criminal actions, nepotism, and abuse of the public trust and the public, both in general and at an individual level.
I am a big fan of States rights, however, but also believe that many times the States get it wrong, and we need an overarching national guidance. For example: States should manage education, and the Department of Education should be reduced in scope tremendously, and serve as a metric-generating and analysis role in government. Energy and environmental policy, however, should not be managed by the States, and state Energy regulation and nuclear regulation should be moved to the Federal level. We have 50 States with 50 different environmental regulatory agencies, 50 different methods for setting renewable portfolio standards, etc. This is madness at many levels, and it is creating inefficiency, uncertainty, and waste in the energy industry. I experience this right now, and it generates a lot of money for me. I’d rather save the taxpayers and ratepayers money, and focus my time on other things.
My only hostility to government is cases where there is waste, fraud, nepotism, political cronyism, and abuse of the public. One might argue that in a smaller government there is less chance of these things happening. I understand that, but eliminating government agencies as a knee-jerk reaction is a bad idea IMO. My preference is sweeping reform which mandates performance goals and expectations and accountability measures. Most importantly, we need to stop being so terrified of firing people and blacklisting them and entire companies from doing business with the government. If Boeing commits fraud on a defense contract, then people need to go to jail, and the stockholders can mull over the fact that Boeing will never, ever be working on another government contract again. Period, end of story, too goddamn bad.
He could simply refused to answer and I would have greatly respected him for doing that. Or he could have told the truth, and again I would have respected him. AFAIK there was no criminal action involved. This goes back to my wanting accountability and law within government. I don’t know if you’ve ever testified in court - I have on numerous occasions, both as a witness, a plaintiff, and as an expert witness. It’s a somber occasion, and one where you, yes YOU have an ability to be part of the process of making this country a better place. It’s absolutely unconscionable to me to lie for any question asked under oath. To do so corrupts and perverts the United States system of justice. It’s incredible to me, yes actually incredible, to see Democrats defending a perversion of justice with what’s essentially hand-waving. I don’t get it; it’s alien to me. I expect the President of the United States, the person who like it or not serves as the bully-pulpit moral leader of the entire country, to set the example for honesty and forthrightness. And if he thinks it’s OK to lie when a question is too embarrassing, then where do you draw the line? Which exact lies should it be “OK” to make under oath? Is there a list?
It’s madness. The President needs to be THE example for “the law applies to all, from King to Beggar”, and he lied under oath. I don’t care nearly as much about his wagging his scolding finger at America through the TV and saying “I did not have sexual relations…”, although it does certainly give credence to the claims that he essentially was and will be a pathological liar for any topic which suits him.
I would vote to indict my own mother if she lied under oath in court about her goulash recipe - why? Because we can’t be in the position of picking and choosing which lies are “cool” and which are “uncool.” The very process of leaving it open to interpretation in fact turns it into a political issue. And what ever happened to a President who was brave enough and bold enough to stand up in front of America and say “damn right she sucked my dick. And it was good. So you can all think about that the next time you vote, or think about the low unemployment, low inflation, GDP growth, and shit that really matters. What’s really important to you? Hell, if it’s the blowjob thing, then you’re too stupid to vote for me anyhow. Now I’m busy; get out of my face.”
I really can’t argue that on this message board. I simply don’t have the time. I’ve worked 60 hours a week for nearly 5 years now.
The military budget needs drastic cuts, which will come when we abandon ship on Iraq, and subsidies across the nation also need cutting. I won’t bore you with a list. “They” say Republicans want to cut spending, and Democrats want to raise taxes. I want to do both. Our culture of debt to get instant gratification is what will destroy this country, just as it’s already destroying the middle class (whoever the fuck they are) right before our very eyes.
This country can be saved, but the salvation won’t come from government, it will come from a major Societal upheaval which in turn will forge an improved government which can lead us into the future.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1627910/transocean-doomed-rigs-owner-seeks.html
Transoceans liability is supposed to be limited to the cost of the platform, which is about 500 million . They have already gone to court to get it reduced to 27 million because they only want to pay salvation costs of the platform. Corporations are designed not to have a conscience. That is why the government has to have its foot on their neck at all times.
A possible scenario:
The president is unlikely to be able to do anything BP isn’t already trying to do, with just as much unsuccess. With Federal interference when this take longer than anyone expected it would BP will just shrug it’s shoulder in court and say “hey we almost had this thing taken care of, then the US government screwed it up, they need to cover the cost now.”
The government is not in the oil business. They don’t have the expertise or the technology to fix the mess. They could however make a big deal of helping the clean up, including having soldiers and National Guard help out.
Yeah, I think it’s safe to demonize the hell out of BP. Their safety record compared with other companies in their field is atrocious.
From here.
760 violations for BP. 8 for the next two worst companies, and 1 for Exxon. I’m really comfortable with demonizing them. The leaders of their corporation should be pilloried across the gulf*. A tour in the stocks from New Orleans to Mobile to Pensacola and as far along the coastline as the oil winds up. If the loop current swirls that shit to Texas let them come to Houston for a while as well.
*No, not really, but I’d like to see some of these people in jail for a long time. Financial penalties levied against the company aren’t enough.
On the other hand, a lot of people might be grateful to BP for developing this new technology (to drill to this depth offshore, it is a record) which will contribute to people not driving around on horses in the next few decades.
I’m not saying BP aren’t at fault, but they do operate on license within government guidelines. And, of course, it wasn’t BP’s rig that collapsed.
For me, it’s mainly just another example of the hold corporations have over government.
You’d think $370 million in fines would buy a federal babysitter or two.
I’d like to see people punished for stupid and equipment designed for stupid.
Which they are. Have you not been paying attention?
Also there’s a hard limit on what untrained people can do to directly affect the leak itself.
Of course, but it has not been played up . Most people think he is twidling his thumbs. He should be standing in a bunch of soldiers who are picking up oily birds while thay tell the TV cameras that they have been at it for weeks.
If I were President Obama I would drag unemployed engineers and machinists into a mothballed car factory and retool them to produce skimmers and oil booms. I want a president who sucks (oil).
I think we could start a couple threads out of this. I haven’t framed these issues in this way and will have to pick it up later, but it all seems perfectly sane so far. I’d like to see energy regulation consolidated at the federal level too (in fact, I thought it already was!)- assuming they use it to steer us toward a more acceptable energy future. I don’t know if there is any room between your proposals for a more centralized but still petro-centric regime to emerge…
The main thing is that you don’t identify with the Libertarians- its ‘conservative’ and probably more constellations of specific proposals.
I don’t like the Libertarian plan for a pretty basic reason: It strikes me as a terrible idea to be so strictly ideological with the economy. It also seems like it would leave the public undefended against various corporate and private schemes. This point will come up again re: Bill Clinton. You technically are rejecting the theory along with the practice of Libertarianism, but I don’t know what, if any, views you have on this aspect of it.
Interesting that you bring up fraud and the defense department. I’m sure you know that BP contracts with the defense department. Surely you’ve heard the news in this article:
Putting two and two together, it sure sounds like you’re saying BP should never work on another government contract again, period, and that’s just too goddamn bad. (Only after the relief wells are finished) Me, I would’ve said ‘shit happens’ instead, and maybe try to push them out of the US altogether, but yeah, I can dig it.
Will you accept categories instead of a list?
You are concerned with things that corrupt and pervert the US system of justice. I share your concern, Una. Depending on what it is, government corruption can really piss me off.
In the Clinton case, the system of justice was already perverted. These proceedings were clearly not seeking the cause of justice. Instead they were seeking the ends of politics. They were more of a show. While the style may still have been in somber tones, the solemnity did not extend to the heart of the matter.
Your legal absolutism seems to me certainly tied up with the concept of blind Justice; neutral, impartial, eternal. No, when She’s around, it is solemn indeed, and few dare lie. But at the Clinton mock-up proceedings, Justice had already fled the scene.
I think Clinton understood this, and his actions were in effect to deny the legitimacy of his being compelled to testify. Saddam used pretty much the same strategy, only in utterly concrete language and at the top of his voice. Right before he got hung. Clinton played his bullshit little games and then went back to being CIC.
So, if your bullshit is clever enough, and the proceedings actually are illegitimate, I think it is okay to fuck with the rules. If you take an immovable absolutist position on this issue, well maybe someday I’ll come along with million-mile lever and pry you right out of your seat
Look, you offered a list of strategies he could have taken. You like all of them better than what he did. If you are not persuaded and still disrespect Clinton I guess it is your business and I won’t regard you as crazy for it.
But it had to be original, not a retread of the French Revolution.
As a self-described conservative, I kind of expect you to dislike Clinton for a list of reasons.
Yeah, but I seriously doubt your mom is going to be asked these questions in court without a darn good reason. And I solemnly swear I doubt your mom would lie about it.
No it doesn’t.
A long time ago I had the title of President. If it makes you feel any better, um, yah, all of the above. So, I’m right here!
Yeah, but you wanted him to lose the election. It was bad enough that all this helped W win later.
Yes, let’s do that.
You mean in this vein? (warning: do not blare at work) I mean, if that’s the path to salvation, do you then prescribe ‘upheaval’ :eek: