Isn't THIS a coincidence?

[Phatman]

In the 2009 movie, "The Knowing", starring Nick Cage, it shows a news story of an oil rig blowing up and catching fire. Date in the movie: April 20, 2010. Ironically, this is the same date that the BP oil rig blew up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WISUquers

What's really interesting is the similarity in the news coverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On a separate note, if this had happened under the watch of that former Texas governor/oil man/baseball team owner who sat in the White House for 8 years, the media would be coming unglued that the government wasn't doing enough and allowing BP to clean this up themselves (uhh...it's been over a month guys, might want to step in and give them a hand). Not to mention the catastrophe in Kentucky that is going largely ignored by the media and the government.

I guess they're busy foiling terrorist plots,...oh wait, they're failing there too.

Maybe, they're too busy dealing with war plans against North Korea for sinking one of South Korea's ships...no?

Ohh, I know, they have their hands full bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan as they promised a couple of years ago when they were running for office....what, they aren't doing that either?

Gitmo?...Nahh

They must be busy figuring how to repay all of that stimulus money they mortgaged our future on to keep unemployment under 8%...right?...didn't think so.

At least the big banks that were too big to fail are still happy and all of those overpaid GM auto-workers still have jobs to create a bunch of crappy cars nobody will be able to afford to buy. Creating more government jobs (which is the only job growth in the last 18 months) doesn't grow your economy, it shrinks it---but that's the plan anyway. We've got to make America a great place of fairness, not a fair place of greatness according to today's political machine.

Both parties are guilty. Both promote large government and corporate power over your life, and that's what they're getting. That's why a bunch of politicians, whose salary we pay, will tell us when they'll stop an oil leak that's polluting our beaches and food supply or when/if they'll clean up from a severe flood or protect or borders or defend our country against real enemies. We've built this monstrous federal government to handle some of these big crisis when they arise, so when are they going to do anything? I guess when something will actually serve or protect the American people it sort of goes to the back burner to the political interests of the politicians and their corporate contributers.

But, oh well. Nobody cares enough to do anything about it and after the Democrats make a mess from the mess that the Republicans left, the Republicans can ride in on their white horse and make things that much worse. And so it goes.

[Paul Sanderson]

I guess The Knowing...knew? :blink:

[Allegory Comics]

You know it's a real sign of the apocalypse when Nic Cage movies are coming to life.

The BEEEEEEEEES!!!!

[Phatman]

You know it's a real sign of the apocalypse when Nic Cage movies are coming to life.

The BEEEEEEEEES!!!!

"Valley Girl" came true, didn't it? I'm on the look out for Ghost Rider.

[Buckyrig]

On a separate note, if this had happened under the watch of that former Texas governor/oil man/baseball team owner who sat in the White House for 8 years, the media would be coming unglued that the government wasn't doing enough and allowing BP to clean this up themselves (uhh...it's been over a month guys, might want to step in and give them a hand). Not to mention the catastrophe in Kentucky that is going largely ignored by the media and the government.

James Carville and a few others have gone after the administration on it. I think they could be holding BP's feet to the fire more, but at the same time, what exactly are they supposed to do? BP was granted the drilling rights on promise that they had a plan to fix just such an accident. It's uncharted territory. So, whose ideas do you go with? Government employees, inside experts, Kevin Costner (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20005511-10391698.html) (yes, I'm fucking serous :laugh: )?

I love how nuclear is suggested because of the oil spill. Wait, what!? Wasn't all there this nonsense about how safe offshore drilling was prattled on and on about, and then this happens anyway. So, yeah, let's go with nuclear whose safety everyone prattles on and on about. It's not like the same fucking thing could happen or anything. :rolleyes:

I don't know. We should probably nuke England though.

[Phatman]

James Carville and a few others have gone after the administration on it. I think they could be holding BP's feet to the fire more, but at the same time, what exactly are they supposed to do? BP was granted the drilling rights on promise that they had a plan to fix just such an accident. It's uncharted territory. So, whose ideas do you go with? Government employees, inside experts, Kevin Costner (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20005511-10391698.html) (yes, I'm fucking serous :laugh: )?

I love how nuclear is suggested because of the oil spill. Wait, what!? Wasn't all there this nonsense about how safe offshore drilling was prattled on and on about, and then this happens anyway. So, yeah, let's go with nuclear whose safety everyone prattles on and on about. It's not like the same fucking thing could happen or anything. :rolleyes:

I don't know. We should probably nuke England though.

BP was up for some federal safety award as well. And, yes, England should be nuked for Dr. Who, if nothing else.

[Buckyrig]

BP has officially become Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. Time to put it in the ground.

[Phatman]

FYI: The Knowing also predicts a subway disaster, a big plane crash and the destruction of Earth by solar flares!

[Buckyrig]

So, you're saying that Nic Cage is trying to kill Waterman?

[Phatman]

In so many words.

[Allegory Comics]

On a separate note, if this had happened under the watch of that former Texas governor/oil man/baseball team owner who sat in the White House for 8 years, the media would be coming unglued that the government wasn't doing enough and allowing BP to clean this up themselves (uhh...it's been over a month guys, might want to step in and give them a hand).
You mean like this
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/05/obama_fanboys_rip_into_adminis.html

Or this
http://wcbstv.com/politics/gulf.oil.spill.2.1712536.html

Or maybe you mean this
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-palin-oil-20100524,0,4673830.story?track=rss

No, wait. It was this
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100522/tsc-uk-oil-leak-obama-011ccfa.html

How about this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/obama-faces-new-wave-of-c_n_585620.html

Maybe this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100522/sc_mcclatchy/3512921_1

Well, surely it wouldn't be on the bastion of liberal newslike CNN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/24/wh-has-authority-but-does-govt-have-know-how-to-take-over-spill-response/?iref=allsearch&fbid=0Lb9JsJmQ5w


You would think there would at least be something on Fox News ... like this
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592131,00.html

Yeah, why ISN'T the media talking about this?

:rolleyes:

But if it does seem like the coverage isn't equal between this and Katrina, perhaps that's because the tragedies themselves are not equal.

1) Katrina was devastating, killed more than 1,800 people and cost more than $80 billion dollars in devastation. People lost their homes, were forced into inadequate shelter facilities where they were overcrowded, hungry and many died and were left there for days because they had nowhere to go. Spreading disease and filth.

2) There is no video of Obama sitting in a room in the weeks and months leading up to the spill, being briefed on the possible danger and deciding not to worry about it (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0301-08.htm).

3) Katrina was amplified by the failure of flood levies created by The Army Corp of Engineers, and BP is a private company.

4) Obama isn't out there saying, "Heck of job, BP!" Instead, he's laying BP on the line and holding people accountable for their failures.

5) While Obama is holding BP accountable, Republican Rand Paul calls Obama "unamerican" and says he's being "too hard" on the oil company (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rand-Paul-Obamas-criticism-of-apf-1918853376.html?x=0&.v=1).

6) There were EIGHT oil spills in the United States during Bush 41's watch, between the years of 2000-2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills).

Nobody's denying that Obama should step in and do more, but don't even compare this to Katrina, because they aren't even CLOSE to being similar, and trying to do so is a slap in the face to the thousands of people who lost their homes, their property, their loved ones, or their lives.

[theflash]

Not sure how much you guys actually know about the leaks and spills caused by Katrina and Rita, and Ivan the year before, but there are still wells leaking from the platforms that sank during those storms. Now I haven't seen any of them leaking on the scale that the BP rig is doing, mostly because those wells were late life wells, and their BOP's actually functioned. We're sitting over one of those platforms right now, killing the wells and returning the sea floor to the way it was before Big Oil showed up.

The question isn't what can we do to BP, it's what do we have the BALLS to do. See, when you have this big giant corporation that has meat hooks in a widely diversified portfolio of investments, you have to be really careful about driving them into the poor house. They also have to be careful that they don't discourage drilling altogether, especially since the Chinese are already drilling offshore of Cuba and would LOVE unobstructed access to the oil dome that the BP rig tapped into. It's sort of a touchy situation. The government wants to be hard nosed, but they don't want to piss BP off too badly so that they take their toys and go home, because that's really not productive. Certainly there will be fines, and BP will pretty much take care of the families of the men who died forever, but beyond that it's business as usual out in the GOM. There are too many high powered companies out here resisting regulation for any meaningful legislation to pass. Politics are all about the dollars and Big Oil has deeper pockets than anyone. They don't fear Uncle Sam because his teeth were pulled a long time ago.

As to BP and their safety...lol that's funny. I've worked for them a number of times over the years and I cal tell you first hand they do love their paperwork to be in order. Does that have any real correlation to actual safety? Nah. But the paperwork was right, you can bet on it.

[Phatman]

Nobody's denying that Obama should step in and do more, but don't even compare this to Katrina, because they aren't even CLOSE to being similar, and trying to do so is a slap in the face to the thousands of people who lost their homes, their property, their loved ones, or their lives.

You're missing the major point that they both suck and are ineffective. So how much damage or people have to die for it to be big enough for him to do something? The federal government takes a lot of our money to build these giant departments/agencies to handle this crap, but they fail every time. Either step up and do the job you are paid to do or pull the funding and dissolve their department/agency. And I'm supposed to trust these clowns with my healthcare? Yeah, right.

Obama wouldn't have done any more than Bush did with Katrina. Just like he hasn't done anything with Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, border security, unemployment, terrorism, etc., etc., etc. He won't do anything about BP because they gave him a ton of cash for his campaign while he was in the Senate---end of story.

The truly offensive part is the 4th estate failing miserably to cover any of this with a non-partisan eye. I guarantee you that there would environmentalists killing themselves on the street if McCain was in office right now and taking little to no action with this catastrophe. That's what it is, no matter who is at fault.

Again, why, after an entire month, has nobody stepped in to plug this friggin' hole? Why is nobody raising this question in the media? Why isn't BP allowing any media access to the area or their efforts? Again, I guess we have more important things to be concerned about like Lindsay Lohan's court appearance.

[Buckyrig]

You're missing the major point that they both suck and are ineffective. So how much damage or people have to die for it to be big enough for him to do something? The federal government takes a lot of our money to build these giant departments/agencies to handle this crap, but they fail every time. Either step up and do the job you are paid to do or pull the funding and dissolve their department/agency. And I'm supposed to trust these clowns with my healthcare? Yeah, right.

Much of the National Guard - and importantly it's equipment - is in the Middle East right now.

[DemolitionSamurai]

So what you're saying is that the government should bail out BP in order to minimize damage?

[theflash]

Again, why, after an entire month, has nobody stepped in to plug this friggin' hole?

Ok, think of it like this. Take a glass of soda with a straw in it. Now bend that straw over sideways at or around midways up. How successful do you think you'll be getting fluid to go either way with it bent like that? Not so much. In fact what we're seeing coming OUT of the well is a lot less than would be without the bent up drill string.

Oil Well work depends entirely upon being able to stab into that well. Currently the well is at an almost impossible angle to stab into it with traditional well work tools. This is why they've worked on stop gap measures until they can design and develop something specifically for this project. It's something that's never been done before, and it's challenging on a level akin to putting someone on the damn moon.

The biggest issue here is the depth they're working at. If this blow out was in water 1500 foot or less there'd be a team of divers down there clearing debris, cold cutting the well back to the point where the workover tools could stab into it and it would be done. But it's not. It's in 5000 feet of water, where only ROVs can go. ROVs are useful in many situations, but as full blown workers they suck ass. They're limited by vision, current, and dexterity. They are very few tools designed to allow ROVs to do the kind of work they're being tasked with doing, so it's going to take some time.


Why is nobody raising this question in the media?

I've seen some not half bad reporting on FOX now and again. They know next to nothing about the process or the requirements and they seem to think that the depth isn't that big a deal, but beyond that they have a decent grip, at least as much as they can with very little knowledge of the environment and the technology. They still call the ROVs "robots" which cracks everyone out here up like you wouldn't believe.


Why isn't BP allowing any media access to the area or their efforts?

Because they can prevent it. I mean really would you want some jerkoff with a camera up your ass sideways while you've already got enough stress trying to get the damn leak stopped? Fact is the media gets in the way. Add to that the fact that they can't just come offshore if they want to and BP can restrict them quite a bit. The Coast Guard sets the rules we all just follow them. Reporters have to be trained to go offshore, and so do camera men and tech crews. They can't just hop on a boat and roll out. Contrary to widely held myth the news media can't just go anywhere they want to go based solely on their press credentials. If BP wanted them there they could go through a process to get special access but that would be directly against their best interests and it would only serve to slow them up further.

[Phatman]

So what you're saying is that the government should bail out BP in order to minimize damage?

Nope. They should bypass BP and fix the leak, and send them the bill. Would you allow a nuclear reactor to leak radiation for a month and just let the company that owns it try to fix it? There comes a point when you've got to use your resources to fix things. This is an environmental and economic disaster. We pay a lot of money to keep these huge agencies afloat who are supposed to handle stuff like this. Make them do their jobs or get rid of them.

[Buckyrig]

Make them do their jobs or get rid of them.

This kind of thing falls on the National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. Our resources there are currently elsewhere.

[Phatman]

This kind of thing falls on the National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. Our resources there are currently elsewhere.

Yep. Again, this poor allocation of federal resources falls on the President.

[Buckyrig]

Yep. Again, this poor allocation of federal resources falls on the President.

What do you suggest?

I would like to see a move out of Iraq and Afghanistan more quickly, but these resources were already allocated there and there are logistical questions about pulling them back.

[dano]

Katrina was a predictable natural disaster. It had no 'owner' so a government response was the only one outside of volunteer aid groups.
BP and it's subcontractor Halliburton were the only ones who could have predicted the rig explosion, prepared a response and executed it. I'm not sure what the government could hvae done more of - clean the beaches? Who knew BP would fail multiple times to plug it?

[Phatman]

Katrina was a predictable natural disaster. It had no 'owner' so a government response was the only one outside of volunteer aid groups.
BP and it's subcontractor Halliburton were the only ones who could have predicted the rig explosion, prepared a response and executed it. I'm not sure what the government could hvae done more of - clean the beaches? Who knew BP would fail multiple times to plug it?

I know it's not something you could predict, but how long do you let this go on? It's ridiculous. I think BP is being protected by the government and not being held accountable at all. I don't know how to fix a leak like this or pretend like I know. However, the full resources of the US government should be on this and they should bring in every expert on the planet to help with this instead of trusting a friggin' oil company. C'mon!

BTW: I honestly think this could be much worse than Katrina in the long run.

[HaphazardJoy]

I know it's not something you could predict, but how long do you let this go on? It's ridiculous. I think BP is being protected by the government and not being held accountable at all. I don't know how to fix a leak like this or pretend like I know. However, the full resources of the US government should be on this and they should bring in every expert on the planet to help with this instead of trusting a friggin' oil company. C'mon!

BTW: I honestly think this could be much worse than Katrina in the long run.

Only problem is that BP IS the expert on this shit. Even if the government pooled its resources to confront this problem, they'd still be in the planning stages and contracting the people with the expertise and knowledge to approach the problem.

[theflash]

Only problem is that BP IS the expert on this shit. Even if the government pooled its resources to confront this problem, they'd still be in the planning stages and contracting the people with the expertise and knowledge to approach the problem.

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. BP are the experts. The only thing the government could do at this point is pull them out and assign another oil company like Shell or Chevron, IF they can get them to even touch it, to deal with the leak. BP is already hip deep in liability at this point and it's in their interest to fix it as quickly as possible, while no other oil company can truly say that. In fact it would be in the best interest of any other company brought in to drag their feet as much as possible to only make BP look worse.

And the Army Corps of Engineers or any other government body, arm, leg, or whatever knows next to nothing about oil field work. They don't mess with it because for one thing it's too expensive, and for another they have never needed to. What most people either fail to realize or refuse to acknowledge is we're less regulated in the oil field than a couple of ten year olds selling lemonade from a stand on the street. Big Oil doesn't want regulation. They don't want reform because it costs them money. We are the North Sea of the 1970s.

[dano]

You know how the government could have helped? Denied off shore drilling in deep water. Or any off shore drilling. In vest in infrastructure and new energy technology!

[HaphazardJoy]

In vest in infrastructure and new energy technology!

Which they have... but everyone acknowledges that it'll take many years before we reduce the necessity of gasoline by serious amounts. Besides the fact that new processes for capturing oil in Canada and renewable, non-drill sources of refined oil are being established, combined with current and future generation cars that consume a fraction of the amount of fuel, gasoline will probably remain the principal source of automotive fuel for decades, along with electrical cars. A lot of the alternative fuel suggestions aren't that feasible as gasoline replacements. Hydrogen cells were really cool when they first started talking about them over a decade ago, but by this point I think it's pretty much accepted that they're not viable for personal transportation purposes... for utility vehicles like forklifts and for use in public transportation, maybe, but even there, electricity may be the way to go. If they reinforce the grid by phasing out fossil fuel plants and build more nuclear plants, electricity would be cheaper and more sustainable than ever. Not to mention cleaner, especially if a more modern take on thorium-fueled nuclear reactors is established.

[theflash]

You know how the government could have helped? Denied off shore drilling in deep water. Or any off shore drilling. In vest in infrastructure and new energy technology!

Because that would help how exactly? We've been dependent on oil for a long time and stopping drilling to put us back to wagons and horses isn't the answer.

[HaphazardJoy]

Because that would help how exactly? We've been dependent on oil for a long time and stopping drilling to put us back to wagons and horses isn't the answer.

To be fair, domestic oil only accounts for a tiny percentage of our consumption. Most of our oil comes from Canada and Saudi Arabia.

[Buckyrig]

Fuck nuclear.

[HaphazardJoy]

Fuck nuclear.

Well put.

Care to explain?

[DemolitionSamurai]

Well put.

Care to explain?

Yeah, nuclear power pretty much rules.

[L Jamal]

I love the Monday morning quaterbacking that goes along with every major/minor disaster. If BP who has the knowledge, resources, and man power isn't there cleaning it up, you should be? The academics? The National Guard? Who?

The federal government is already bleeding money and you want them to takeover to do an even less effective job? As it stands, BP is footing the major cost of this. They should foot a large part of the clean up efforts. They should pay a large fine for negligence and they should not be bailed out by anyone. They made the mess , they are the experts, they should clean it up. That's common sense.

All the media personalities aren't there to give us news, they are there to give us their opinions of the news. They want to get us worked up because we are sheep. It increases their viewers which increases the advertising revenue which increases the money in their pockets.

[dano]

Because that would help how exactly? We've been dependent on oil for a long time and stopping drilling to put us back to wagons and horses isn't the answer.
it would have prevented the BP spill for one thing. You know it wouldn't put us to wagons and horses; thats a scare tactic.
We are largely dependent on oil as a luxury - gas guzzling cars by choice, fuel inefficincy from manufacturers, plastic EVERYWHERE.
restricting domestic drilling will push corporations towards other solutions.

[L Jamal]

it would have prevented the BP spill for one thing. You know it wouldn't put us to wagons and horses; thats a scare tactic.
We are largely dependent on oil as a luxury - gas guzzling cars by choice, fuel inefficincy from manufacturers, plastic EVERYWHERE.
restricting domestic drilling will push corporations towards other solutions.
An it would also drive up the prices of everything and cost jobs.
Americans want money and luxury and they want it cheap.
It's not just oil, it's a way of life.
Changing America's feeling of entitlement is not as easy as "no more drill off shore."

[dano]

An it would also drive up the prices of everything and cost jobs.
Americans want money and luxury and they want it cheap.
It's not just oil, it's a way of life.
Changing America's feeling of entitlement is not as easy as "no more drill off shore."
Its all a complex tapestry! Prices would rise in the short term but I tihnk it would create jobs by creating more diverse industry within our borders.
Large scale operations can leverage technology and scale to produce the most product with the fewest people and cost.
By adding diversity of industry, in aggregate, that scale starts to disappear and more jobs are created. With more businesses and more people collecting paychecks there's more taxes and more consumers which eventually will lower prices. [/dream]

[Buckyrig]

Well put.

Care to explain?

Trading one one bequeathed problem for another is not ok. Nuclear waste is still an issue. Even with reprocessing (and that produces yellow cake, which will essentially be a national security issue and need to be guarded from theft).

'Oh well, a future generation will figure it out'* is not an acceptable solution. It's pretty much the attitude that's gotten us where we are today. And no one wants the waste. Nevada's threatened to resist the importation of waste by force.

And I don't care how much safer the plants are supposed to be today, nothing is foolproof. (Nevermind that "perfectly safe", "we've improved the technology", etc are famous last words.)

People need to curb their appetites. It won't happen until there is forced upon them by reality, so it's gonna get ugly.




* I don't assume a future generation is guaranteed to figure out anything. I don't believe in mythical assumptions of human beings pulling through or figuring out whatever is thrown at them.

[HaphazardJoy]

And I don't care how much safer the plants are supposed to be today, nothing is foolproof. (Nevermind that "perfectly safe", "we've improved the technology", etc are famous last words.)

Alright, only good, valid points I saw were: it still produces waste, and it's not 100% safe. Nothing is 100%, but modern nuclear practices are pretty damn close. Nuclear waste IS an issue, but it's nowhere near the issue that's produced by fossil fuel. It's not trading one bad things for another bad thing, it's trading one bad thing for a lesser bad thing.

On top of that, you're clearly not up on thorium-based plants. It's a process that was first researched decades ago, and there are several operating plants still in use outside of the US, but with a little more research and practice, it could easily replace the existing model for nuclear power in the US. Thorium is only slightly radioactive and highly abundant. It would still have to be mined, but it's much more common that uranium, and much cheaper. Thorium is not able to be weaponized like uranium and plutonium. The existing models for thorium power are completely incapable of melting down. Even though modern power plants can't meltdown like three mile island or Chernobyl anymore without a perfect storm of accidents, equipment failure, and containment problems, a thorium system is one step safer in that it CAN NOT melt down, the fuel isn't capable of reaching critical temperatures as uranium cores can. Thorium waste is still dangerous, but less so than full-on uranium fuel produces.

[Buckyrig]

Nothing "cannot" meltdown. The structure may be "impervious" to meltdown. However, you discount physical trauma. Loss of structural integrity of a more mundane nature, caused by age, disrepair, earthquake, etc.

You still have issues of radioactive water and steam, even failing a meltdown.

As bad as things are, the ecosystem will correct the damage done by fossil fuels far more quickly than nuclear waste will become safe. Hoping that a storage facility will maintain integrity over a thousand years with all the unpredictable geological activity of the planet - complicated by whatever aggravating issues are being created by the fossil fuel environmental problem - is Pollyanna-ish.

The entire enterprise is contingent on us finding solutions to problems we are putting off today, before they become problem for today. At some point, we run out of places to store the waste. Perhaps we store someplace we thought was essentially inert land, but over such a long time it may become fertile and needed by a large population with dwindling farm land.

It's large scale buck passing.

[HaphazardJoy]

From every indication I've heard, the Thorium system can't meltdown, if the system was left unchecked it would burn through it's starter seed and after that no longer be able to maintain fission temperatures on its own. So yeah, the thorium itself could meltdown, but the system doesn't have the problem of requiring constant cooling to keep in check, the system actually requires heat be produced for it to work, so if the system failed it would cool and die out on its own.

[Allegory Comics]

You gotta love Digital Webbing.

The only place online where a single thread can start with Nic Cage, then turn into a discussion about politics, then big oil, then alternative energy, then nuclear engineering.

We do the same thing at work when we're goofing around, and it's a running joke here that every topic is only 7 degrees away from eventually turning into a discussion/argument/joking about sodomy. It's our "Seven Degrees to Sodomy" game.

And it's in that spirit now that I offer you ...

"Also sodomy"

There. I just saved you 2 steps.

Discuss.

[Buckyrig]

From every indication I've heard, the Thorium system can't meltdown,

There are other ways for radioactive water and steam to escape the plant.

[HaphazardJoy]

There are other ways for radioactive water and steam to escape the plant.

Erm, yeah, but that's not a meltdown.
A meltdown is an uncontrolled overheating and literal melting of the fuels and housing, causing extreme levels of temperature and radiation and potential breach of the reactor containment. Contaminated water and steam are bad, sure, and could cause real problems over time, but that's not the same as an event like Chernobyl. Existing thorium systems rely on liquid sodium circulation and again, cannot generate its own heat to the extent that it'd cause such a mechanical or containment failure.

[Buckyrig]

The problem with a meltdown is contamination. You're talking about levels. But as I said, even failing a meltdown, there are scenarios that result in massive contamination of the environment.

It seems a lot of the defense of new processes is the assurances that the processes themselves are safer. Ok, that's something, but it's not the only way to have a disaster.

I also question some of the material I've seen. How the fuck do you initiate fission by firing protons?

[HaphazardJoy]

How the fuck do you initiate fission by firing protons?

By creating isotopes/unstable configurations in that manner?

[Buckyrig]

By creating isotopes in that manner?

What I mean is, that if you fire a proton at a nucleus, it will deflect because they are both positively charged. Now, maybe there is something that I am unaware of, but I'm reading articles that just say they can start a fission reaction by firing protons.

[HaphazardJoy]

What I mean is, that if you fire a proton at a nucleus, it will deflect because they are both positively charged. Now, maybe there is something that I am unaware of, but I'm reading articles that just say they can start a fission reaction by firing protons.

Yeah, I've never studied any sciences but for biology at a college level, so I don't know the exact answer. The nucleus is positive, but it's engaged with the electrons for a net neutral charge. I imagine either the protons strip electrons to spawn unnatural bonds, or they knock neutrons around creating isotopes.

[Buckyrig]

Yeah, I've never studied any sciences but for biology at a college level, so I don't know the exact answer. The nucleus is positive, but it's engaged with the electrons for a net neutral charge. I imagine either the protons strip electrons to spawn unnatural bonds, or they knock neutrons around creating isotopes.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that to sound like speculation that it would deflect. It would. It's been shown to. When scientists were first trying to create a fission reaction, they were trying to do it with protons. Then someone realized they needed to use neutrons.

I'm wondering if there is something that I am missing in the reading, or is an explanation just not there.

[theflash]

Even though modern power plants can't meltdown like three mile island or Chernobyl anymore without a perfect storm of accidents, equipment failure, and containment problems...


That's pure fiction. A modern plant can melt down quite easily. Lose primary water and a safety valve fails...meltdown. Pull the rods, or the rods jam, meltdown. There are many not that extreme problems that can cause a meltdown. Problems like what happened at Chernobyl don't happen here primarily because we're a lot safer and we use water as a coolant instead of sodium. Makes for less explosions when you get leaks. But 3 mile island still illustrates we CAN have a meltdown and it's not that hard to achieve. You should also consider how many reactor plants we operate in this country. Take out all the land based plants and you still have literally hundreds of plants aboard Navy ships with the potential for problems. There is no can't meltdown with a nuclear power plant, at least not what we've got now. I have no clue about Thorium as I haven't looked into it.



You still have issues of radioactive water and steam,

There is also no radioactive water. The half-life of water is so incredibly short it pretty much refuses to hold radioactivity. What you DO get is contamination in the water that holds radioactivity. In pure water that doesn't happen, anything less than perfectly pure water and yeah it'll be hot, but it's really not the water but the suspended particulate that's dangerous. Pure water doesn't conduct electricity either. :)

[Biofungus]

BP needs to dump a bunch of penguins, seals and otters into the mess to soak it up.

[HaphazardJoy]

That's pure fiction. A modern plant can melt down quite easily. Lose primary water and a safety valve fails...meltdown. Pull the rods, or the rods jam, meltdown. There are many not that extreme problems that can cause a meltdown.

That's why it happens all the time, right? I mean, there's a far greater number of reactors online these days, as you pointed out, so there must be constant meltdowns, right?

Yes, meltdowns can happen, but there are far greater safety measures taken now. Pointing out Three Mile Island isn't a useful indicator, that was thirty-one years ago, and obviously it happened years BEFORE Chernobyl. Three Mile Island only happened because of a long string of both mechanical AND human errors. There have been lessons learned from those mistakes. At the very least, our modern reactors are contained to a much better level. The REAL failing of Chernobyl wasn't the cooling medium, but the lack of containment.

[Biofungus]

Japan has more active nuclear reactors than any other nation. They also have the highest concentration of giant atomic mutations. Coincidence? Hmmm...

[HaphazardJoy]

Japan has more active nuclear reactors than any other nation. They also have the highest concentration of giant atomic mutations. Coincidence? Hmmm...

And where would we be if Godzilla wasn't around to protect us from intergalactic alien menaces? Huh? Glass half empty folks, every single one of you.

[dano]

It's a very mob like relationship. He protects us from outside threats but then occasionally rampages in our cities. He's fine beating on us but he won't let the outsiders beat on us!

[ryarger]

I'm wondering if there is something that I am missing in the reading, or is an explanation just not there.

The protons are shot against molten lead to create the neutrons that initiate the actual fusion. It's just a more energy efficient way of creating neutrons than the old method.

Having a background in particle physics puts me a little closer to this debate than most. Nuclear fission is a wonderful, clean energy source that should be a significant part of our energy plan.

However, anyone who tells you that any nuclear reactor is failsafe and foolproof should be reminded that the deep water oil rigs are also failsafe and foolproof and designed such that there was no possible way anything could go wrong.

Expansion of our nuclear capacity should be done, but it should be slowly, carefully and with as much caution as possible and then ten times more. Sadly, that adds overhead which reduces the cost benefit of nuclear, but having clean power is worth it.

Hopefully we'll reach the holy grail of sustainable fusion some day, but until then hydro, solar, wind and nuclear are our best bets.

[Phatman]

Sadly, that adds overhead which reduces the cost benefit of nuclear, but having clean power is worth it.

Hopefully we'll reach the holy grail of sustainable fusion some day, but until then hydro, solar, wind and nuclear are our best bets.

I guess "clean" is a point of view. Something that leaves waste that remains radioactive for up to 10,000 years isn't something I'd describe as "clean". I agree that a blend of cleaner energy alternatives are needed.

[ryarger]

I guess "clean" is a point of view. Something that leaves waste that remains radioactive for up to 10,000 years isn't something I'd describe as "clean". I agree that a blend of cleaner energy alternatives are needed.

It's true that people have a very hard time thinking of nuclear as "clean" because of the waste issue. But with reprocessing technology advancing quickly, that is becoming more manageable.

Mostly, people say nuclear is clean because it emits no pollution into the air. So *IF* you contain the waste then you are providing power without harming the environment.

However, I don't at all discount the size of that "IF", and personally prefer other clean power tech. I'd go as far as putting nuclear in it's own class between clean (wind, hydro, solar, etc) and dirty (oil, coal, gas, etc) but definitely wouldn't group it with the dirties.

Dirty.

Like sodomy.

[dano]

Having a background in particle physics puts me a little closer to this debate than most. .
HA! He's like Newt except he's smart in awesome science instead of lame science! :thumbs:
New Newt is good.

[theflash]

That's why it happens all the time, right? I mean, there's a far greater number of reactors online these days, as you pointed out, so there must be constant meltdowns, right?

Yes, meltdowns can happen, but there are far greater safety measures taken now. Pointing out Three Mile Island isn't a useful indicator, that was thirty-one years ago, and obviously it happened years BEFORE Chernobyl. Three Mile Island only happened because of a long string of both mechanical AND human errors. There have been lessons learned from those mistakes. At the very least, our modern reactors are contained to a much better level. The REAL failing of Chernobyl wasn't the cooling medium, but the lack of containment.

I never said there were constant meltdowns. What I said was it's fiction to say we CAN'T have a meltdown. When you have a fission reactor such as ours the potential for a meltdown exists.

And Chernobyl's containment was breached by an explosion. What causes an explosion inside a Soviet nuclear reactor? A primary coolant leak, whereby water (the secondary coolant) mixes with liquid sodium (the primary coolant) resulting in an incredibly violent explosion. No amount of containment is gonna stop that. After that it was all downhill and dead people.

[Knuckles]

So Obama took a hard line with off shore drilling today by suspending all permits and canceling leashes for the next 6 months. This is a great time to try and jump start our manufacturing sector by building and maintaining clean energy.

[Buckyrig]

There is also no radioactive water. The half-life of water is so incredibly short it pretty much refuses to hold radioactivity. What you DO get is contamination in the water that holds radioactivity. In pure water that doesn't happen, anything less than perfectly pure water and yeah it'll be hot, but it's really not the water but the suspended particulate that's dangerous. Pure water doesn't conduct electricity either. :)

If you have a bucket made of lucite, and you fill it with benzyne, will it look full or empty?

[theflash]

So Obama took a hard line with off shore drilling today by suspending all permits and canceling leashes for the next 6 months. This is a great time to try and jump start our manufacturing sector by building and maintaining clean energy.

Yeah. Tell me how cool that is in six months when your gas prices are back up to around 4 bucks a gallon. Someone mentioned earlier that we only get a small % from domestic drilling so it shouldn't matter.

I'll point out that when Katrina and Rita hit we only lost 16% of our domestic production for 11 days and saw a spike in gas prices that sent many people looking for a second job.

I do so love hearing the tree huggers scream like little bitches when they can't afford to put gas in their smart cars. It kinda cracks me up.

[theflash]

If you have a bucket made of lucite, and you fill it with benzyne, will it look full or empty?

I dunno. But I hear benzyne helps frogs grow a third eye. Maybe that's the missing link in the jump to superpowers!

[Buckyrig]

I'll point out that when Katrina and Rita hit we only lost 16% of our domestic production for 11 days and saw a spike in gas prices that sent many people looking for a second job.

How much of that is caused by futures trading? A lot of deals could have been cut in 11 days without knowing the full impact on production.

[dano]

I do so love hearing the tree huggers scream like little bitches when they can't afford to put gas in their smart cars. It kinda cracks me up.
I think the bitches were the people with big ass SUVs and pick-ups filling the tank with over $100 of heroin a week.

Suddenly, commuter trains were fashionable.

[HaphazardJoy]

Yeah. Tell me how cool that is in six months when your gas prices are back up to around 4 bucks a gallon. Someone mentioned earlier that we only get a small % from domestic drilling so it shouldn't matter.

I'll point out that when Katrina and Rita hit we only lost 16% of our domestic production for 11 days and saw a spike in gas prices that sent many people looking for a second job.

We'll be up close to $4 a gallon regardless of this. It was me that point out that domestic drilling is only a small portion of our crude oil usage, you're talking about PRODUCTION. Katrina and Rita caused damage and delays in REFINING oil into gasoline, not just drilling. The country lost a good portion of its ability to convert oil into gasoline, that's why there was so much of a spike in cost and reduced availability. Even then, most of the increase in cost we felt at that time was because of the oil companies raising cost to meet an assumed loss of profit on their part. It was all about them preemptively protecting their profit margin.

[theflash]

We'll be up close to $4 a gallon regardless of this. It was me that point out that domestic drilling is only a small portion of our crude oil usage, you're talking about PRODUCTION. Katrina and Rita caused damage and delays in REFINING oil into gasoline, not just drilling. The country lost a good portion of its ability to convert oil into gasoline, that's why there was so much of a spike in cost and reduced availability. Even then, most of the increase in cost we felt at that time was because of the oil companies raising cost to meet an assumed loss of profit on their part. It was all about them preemptively protecting their profit margin.

Katrina didn't impact our ability to refine AT ALL, and Rita only marginally so mostly due to worker evacuation. The fact is the oil field and the refining industry wasn't affected to any appreciable degree and yet we had a HUGE spike in gas prices. Oil companies said it was because supplies fell so low, but that really doesn't wash with the lack of down time plus our continued imports. The truth is they saw a half ass plausible excuse to gouge the shit out of us to the tune of literally billions of dollars and they took it. I guess I don't blame them since they're in the business of making money, but I'd rather they stop fabricating the lies and feeding it to the media so people can eat it up with a spoon.

[theflash]

How much of that is caused by futures trading? A lot of deals could have been cut in 11 days without knowing the full impact on production.

As I understand the whole speculator market, which is to say not a lot, I have heard there was a significant impact from speculation as well. Honestly, I'd rather have the storms tear shit up than have us suffering because some jerkoff with nothing better to do with his day and guess about the market caused a meltdown. At least you can look at the storms thing and say there was nothing we could have done to prevent that, it was mother nature kicking our ass. With the speculators we're kinda kicking our own asses, which kinda hurts more.

[theflash]

I think the bitches were the people with big ass SUVs and pick-ups filling the tank with over $100 of heroin a week.

Suddenly, commuter trains were fashionable.

I'd totally rock the train to work if I could, no doubt. I like mass transit, and I really enjoy bicycle commuting as well, but that's hard to do over the water. :)

I'm actually a big advocate of alternative energy and reducing our dependence on oil of any kind, foreign or domestic. What I can't stand though, is the people whining about how no one is doing anything to make us green while doing nothing constructive themselves. People like Al Gore who talk "Green" all day long and scream about global warming and then go home to his ridiculously expensive to heat and cool mansion and think he's doing something with his twice recycled toilet paper. You want to impress me pal? Build an adobe house out of dirt and tires and live the shit you're talking. Invest some of your daddy's ancient money in a REAL workable plan. Then I'd be impressed.

The people I totally dig are guys like T. Boone Pickens. He used to be Big Oil, but now he's building wind farms by the droves in areas of North Texas that have more wind than anything. He's taking what has become a very viable resource and harnessing it for profit but also for the betterment of society. That's a guy I can support.

[HaphazardJoy]

I'll point out that when Katrina and Rita hit we only lost 16% of our domestic production for 11 days and saw a spike in gas prices that sent many people looking for a second job.

The fact is the oil field and the refining industry wasn't affected to any appreciable degree and yet we had a HUGE spike in gas prices. Oil companies said it was because supplies fell so low, but that really doesn't wash with the lack of down time plus our continued imports. The truth is they saw a half ass plausible excuse to gouge the shit out of us to the tune of literally billions of dollars and they took it.

So basically you're acknowledging that delaying any further drilling in the gulf will only raise prices because of the oil companies gouging the public. So you've validated my point about how little domestic drilling matters, provided sound reasoning for further regulation of the oil companies, and generally made "treehuggers" sound right.

Nice job.

[theflash]

So basically you're acknowledging that delaying any further drilling in the gulf will only raise prices because of the oil companies gouging the public. So you've validated my point about how little domestic drilling matters, provided sound reasoning for further regulation of the oil companies, and generally made "treehuggers" sound right.

Nice job.

Yup, if we stop or delay drilling they WILL in fact gouge the living shit out of us, which I believe I pointed out when Knuckles raised the tree hugger flag.

I don't know that domestic drilling doesn't matter. Right now it's nowhere near what we get from other countries, but it matters to the folks who work out here and make a living offshore that's for sure. Since the oil companies seem to love using out domestic production as a gauge to squeeze us at the pump I'd say it matters to anyone who drives as well.

As to regulation, Absolutely. I say regulate the oil companies, regulate the speculators, regulate the shit out of it. They need it trust me. Try being at ground zero and see what that's like. One day in the oil field is probably the most eye opening experience most people ever get.

And I still say the vast majority of your tree hugging populace are only tree huggers till it starts costing them lifestyle convenience. Kinda like lipstick lesbians in that way, they only like it when it's pretty.

[HaphazardJoy]

I don't know that domestic drilling doesn't matter. Right now it's nowhere near what we get from other countries, but it matters to the folks who work out here and make a living offshore that's for sure. Since the oil companies seem to love using out domestic production as a gauge to squeeze us at the pump I'd say it matters to anyone who drives as well.

No, you're right, that's absolutely true that the workers matter. Hopefully they'll reopen new drilling in a more restricted manner after better safety rules are put in place and enforced. And alternative energy jobs will hopefully be on the rise too. It shouldn't matter to drivers because oil companies shouldn't be allowed to shit all over us and get a free pass from both the government and us consumers. As awareness gets better and people stop accepting that they're the bitch in their relationship with the oil companies. There's little an individual can do against an oil company, but a hundred thousand angry people can certainly turn the tide on social and political pressure on these fuckers.

Also: I think you're misunderstanding the impact of this shit on those treehuggers. I've never heard that sort complain about gas costs, especially when they're driving cars that could run for weeks on the money underneath my couch cushions.

[Knuckles]

How did I raise the tree hugger flag? I wasn't even thinking about that, I was thinking that this is a good time to bring back jobs that were lost from the recession.

And raising gas prices really don't effect me. I ride my bike year around for work or take public transportation to the places I need to go. I only use the car to go see my parents and the wife's parents, which is maybe every two months.

[Buckyrig]

I only use the car to go see my parents and the wife's parents, which is maybe every two months.

Then why not just rent a car for those occasions?

Or use car share? (http://www.zipcar.com/)

[Knuckles]

We thought about that (the car sharing), but we got the car for free and we do need it on a rare occasion to pick-up a dog for our business.

[dano]

What business...SACRIFICE?!?!

[CHWolf]

"film making". D:

[HaphazardJoy]

Budget pan-Asian cuisine.

[FA]

A political discussion? In chitchat? And nobody has yet questioned the legitimacy of someone else's parentage?

How very....unsettling.

[Toyandgadgetguy]

A political discussion? In chitchat? And nobody has yet questioned the legitimacy of someone else's parentage?

How very....unsettling.

Where the hell have you been? Ok, wait... don't answer that. I'd probably be scared by the knowledge.


Better yet... why the hell haven't you been here at all?

[Great Scott]

The Ginger Beast awakens.

[Buckyrig]

I tap out! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/01/entertainment/main6538511.shtml)

Federal officials are hoping film director James Cameron can help them come up with ideas on how to stop the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

:laugh:

[Phatman]

I tap out! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/01/entertainment/main6538511.shtml)

:laugh:


WTF!!!!!!!

...these guys* are starting to make Bush look smart






















*WWTND**





















**What Would The Navi' Do?

[Buckyrig]

I'm waiting for a robocall.

"Registered voter, your country needs you. Do you have any ideas on how we can clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

If yes, please press one."

[theflash]

WTF!!!!!!!

...these guys* are starting to make Bush look smart




We were actually talking today about Bush. I bet he's laughing his ass off right now watching Obama flop around like a fish as the media grills him on the oil spill. Bush took a beating on the Katrina/Rita debacle, and at least somewhat deservedly so, but I bet he's loving getting to see Obama eat some of that same pie.

[HaphazardJoy]

How's it the same pie again? Bush knew about the potential for what happened with Katrina and ignored it and then failed to apply resources that he already had at his command in order to speed aid to the area. I haven't seen or heard of any video of advisors telling Obama that this was almost certainly going to happen and Obama laughing it off, and Obama doesn't have the resources and expertise directly at his command to confront this issue. It's an unfortunate event, but I don't think we can blame the president for this one except to say that all of the presidents have given the MMS too much wiggle room... and that's a foregone conclusion with this damned government being in big oil's pocket so deep.

[L Jamal]

We were actually talking today about Bush. I bet he's laughing his ass off right now watching Obama flop around like a fish as the media grills him on the oil spill. Bush took a beating on the Katrina/Rita debacle, and at least somewhat deservedly so, but I bet he's loving getting to see Obama eat some of that same pie.

I still think there's a huge difference between an oil spill and the death toll of Katrina. The local, state and federal government are supposed to act to save as many lives as possible. They all failed with Katrina.

The government is not and is never should be equipped to deal with oil spills. That's the job of the oil company. At this point, anything the government can do will be take measure to prevent a future disaster via legislation. Too little, too late for now.

[Paul Sanderson]

I still think there's a huge difference between an oil spill and the death toll of Katrina. The local, state and federal government are supposed to act to save as many lives as possible. They all failed with Katrina.

The government is not and is never should be equipped to deal with oil spills. That's the job of the oil company. At this point, anything the government can do will be take measure to prevent a future disaster via legislation. Too little, too late for now.

Exactly right, there's a huge difference between a natural disaster, and one's response to that and a man-made disaster which was acted upon quickly. The fact the oil spill disaster happened and that efforts to fix the problem have so far failed is the problem of BP and BP alone. Any government isn't equipped to deal with these sorts of matters. But dealing with the aftermath of a natural disaster such as a hurricane and its effects on the population very much comes down what the government does and can do. Bush failed there. Obama has done nothing wrong with the oil spill situation. If anyone wants to point the finger of blame, point it at BP, the company that actually deserves it.

[Phatman]

I still think there's a huge difference between an oil spill and the death toll of Katrina. The local, state and federal government are supposed to act to save as many lives as possible. They all failed with Katrina.

The government is not and is never should be equipped to deal with oil spills. That's the job of the oil company. At this point, anything the government can do will be take measure to prevent a future disaster via legislation. Too little, too late for now.

Jurisdiction for Katrina went to the states...the oil spill is in waters that are within federal jurisdcition. Obama is just as worthless as Bush. The sooner everybody gets that, the better.

[HaphazardJoy]

Jurisdiction for Katrina went to the states...the oil spill is in waters that are within federal jurisdcition. Obama is just as worthless as Bush. The sooner everybody gets that, the better.

Oh well, I don't get it, I think he's doing a fantastic job.

[theflash]

Believe me when I tell you, I'm not saying BP is innocent here, nor am I saying Obama should eat all the blame, or even most of it. What I am saying is Obama is on the hot seat from the media over this oil spill, right or wrong. If you can't see that by turning on your TV or reading the news via the web I don't know what to tell you.

Bush certainly failed the people caught up in Rita and Katrina. I was among them, though fortunately on the fringe and on a boat for the worst of that mess. I think everyone involved can attest to the absolute failure of leadership in that situation from the top down. Now as for what Bush knew beforehand...I gotta give the guy a pass on that. Those levies and the system in place had been there for decades and been largely ignored by everyone that could turn a blind eye. Bush just happened to be in the big chair when the butcher's bill came due. Blame the guy for being indecisive, fine. I'll be right there with ya. But lack of action prior to you can hang on Clinton, Reagan, and all the rest going back to the 60s at least.

[Phatman]

Exactly right, there's a huge difference between a natural disaster, and one's response to that and a man-made disaster which was acted upon quickly. The fact the oil spill disaster happened and that efforts to fix the problem have so far failed is the problem of BP and BP alone. Any government isn't equipped to deal with these sorts of matters. But dealing with the aftermath of a natural disaster such as a hurricane and its effects on the population very much comes down what the government does and can do. Bush failed there. Obama has done nothing wrong with the oil spill situation. If anyone wants to point the finger of blame, point it at BP, the company that actually deserves it.

The "natural" disaster was made into a huge problem because of governmental mismanagement at all levels.

Man, you guys are myopic. Can we keep pretending that BP hasn't shelled out more money to our President than any other politician? Bush sucked. Obama sucks. They're both ineffective leaders who are underqualified for this position and don't give a crap about the people down there or the outcome of this tragedy.

Btw, forget calling James Cameron and bring in the Mythbusters. Those guys will have 3 ideas as good as BP's within an hour.

[Phatman]

Oh well, I don't get it, I think he's doing a fantastic job.

I'm pleased that he put some extra help and funds on the southern border. Good move, Barry! :thumbs:

[HaphazardJoy]

Now as for what Bush knew beforehand...I gotta give the guy a pass on that.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the area knew beforehand, but specifically, Bush was warned at what might happen the day before it made landfall in the US. Not that he could have magically made it go away, but he could have done a lot more to promote the evacuations and prepare for the worst.

[HaphazardJoy]

I'm pleased that he put some extra help and funds on the southern border. Good move, Barry! :thumbs:

Oh God, don't start with that Barry crap. That just makes you sound crazy and/or desperate. Dude chose to go back to his birth name as an adult, get over it.

[Great Scott]

Jurisdiction for Katrina went to the states...the oil spill is in waters that are within federal jurisdcition.
It's not about juristiction, it's about vastly different responses to vastly different disasters.
Obama is just as worthless as Bush. The sooner everybody gets that, the better.
That's just completely and utterly untrue.

The amount of sheer, I-told-you-so joy that Obama haters are getting out of this ecological disaster is completely disgusting. It's not the same thing, this is not Obama's Katrina, this is Obama's oil spill and they are doing what they can with what they have.

Don't get me wrong, Obama did make a mistake here, but it's not a lack of response after the disaster. His mistake was that he didn't crack down on Big Oil from day one with all of the power of his office. He was lax in tightening back down the regulations that previous administrations let loose.

[Phatman]

FYI:

Hurrican season opened today, and it's supposed to be a bad one:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/06/01/Computer-predicts-active-hurricane-season/UPI-57261275426213/

So, there's plenty of warning here that there is going to be a problem between the oil and the weather. Knowing that, as soon as a big hurricane starts stirring in the Gulf this summer, are you going to expect the federal government to scramble resources, just in case? They know that what is in the water right now is going to make any storm worse and they aren't doing anything. Isn't that exactlly what you're accusing the Bush Administration of? When oil starts raining inland on everything, whose fault is it then?

[HaphazardJoy]

Don't get me wrong, Obama did make a mistake here, but it's not a lack of response after the disaster. His mistake was that he didn't crack down on Big Oil from day one with all of the power of his office. He was lax in tightening back down the regulations that previous administrations let loose.

...And if he'd done that, there's a good chance he'd have no shot at reelection for himself and those involved in his administration. Even then, should he have foreseen this incident? I don't see how he could have.

In general, you can disagree with Obama's ideas for America, but it's a pretty hard argument to make that he's down to Bush's level. I think if he's successful with even half of what he's trying to do, he'll be viewed as one of our best presidents decades from now. A lot of the negativity towards Obama comes from the Tea Party side of things, and they were ready to hate him no matter how well or poorly the country does under his leadership. Personally, I'm hoping a few more Tea Party candidates like we've been seeing step forward and take seats, it'll demolish the Republicans with fringe votes and negative perception as these shmucks keep talking into the cameras and making themselves look like asses.

[Phatman]

Oh God, don't start with that Barry crap. That just makes you sound crazy and/or desperate. Dude chose to go back to his birth name as an adult, get over it.

His friends call him Barry. I don't really care what you call him as long as it isn't "Mr. President" in another 2 1/2 years.

BTW, check some history around here and you'll find that I called him that before he even got the nomination----I'm no 'johnny-come-lately'.

[Buckyrig]

Jurisdiction for Katrina went to the states...the oil spill is in waters that are within federal jurisdcition. Obama is just as worthless as Bush. The sooner everybody gets that, the better.

The Army Corps of Engineers built the levees.

[HaphazardJoy]

His friends call him Barry. I don't really care what you call him as long as it isn't "Mr. President" in another 2 1/2 years.

BTW, check some history around here and you'll find that I called him that before he even got the nomination----I'm no 'johnny-come-lately'.

I don't really care how long you've been saying it, it aligns you in my mind with the fruits out there calling for impeachment (over what?) who harp on the point of his name having been stated as Barry Soetoro when he was a kid. His nickname is Barry, yeah, but it had always been, and I heard that his father's nickname was Barry before him. Maybe you're not using it in that context, but that's the same offhand manner in which those nuts use it.

[Phatman]

It's not about juristiction, it's about vastly different responses to vastly different disasters.

That's just completely and utterly untrue.

The amount of sheer, I-told-you-so joy that Obama haters are getting out of this ecological disaster is completely disgusting. It's not the same thing, this is not Obama's Katrina, this is Obama's oil spill and they are doing what they can with what they have.

Don't get me wrong, Obama did make a mistake here, but it's not a lack of response after the disaster. His mistake was that he didn't crack down on Big Oil from day one with all of the power of his office. He was lax in tightening back down the regulations that previous administrations let loose.

Of course he won't crack down on big oil because they've helped put him in office. BTW, I have no hate for Obama or Bush---I hate some of their ideas and actions, but not the men. My criticism is based on the consistant lack of leadership by two men who are underqualified for this job. I really don't hold big grudges against either of them for the most part and realize that they are symptoms of a much larger problem in our government---if it wasn't Obama failing miserably it would have been McCain or Clinton. Different puppets/same masters.

[Phatman]

The Army Corps of Engineers built the levees.

That was my point---this was a problem waiting to happen.

[HaphazardJoy]

That was my point---this was a problem waiting to happen.

Oh snap! hahahaha.

[Buckyrig]

That was my point---this was a problem waiting to happen.

That's the federal government. You said it was a state responsibility.

[Great Scott]

...And if he'd done that, there's a good chance he'd have no shot at reelection for himself and those involved in his administration. Even then, should he have foreseen this incident? I don't see how he could have.
He was elected by voters who want him to reign in the dogs Bush let loose, and Big Oil is one of the biggest of those dogs. Failing to do THAT is what will lose him the next election. It's not about foreseeing a specific event, it's the common knowledge that industries like Big Oil, Wall Street, Medicine, and about a million others will rape the citizens of this country, and the world, without hesitation if it improves their bottom line. Government regulation is like a prison guard in OZ - it doesn't stop the raping, but it keeps it to a minimum.

[HaphazardJoy]

Of course he won't crack down on big oil because they've helped put him in office. BTW, I have no hate for Obama or Bush---I hate some of their ideas and actions, but not the men. My criticism is based on the consistant lack of leadership by two men who are underqualified for this job. I really don't hold big grudges against either of them for the most part and realize that they are symptoms of a much larger problem in our government---if it wasn't Obama failing miserably it would have been McCain or Clinton. Different puppets/same masters.

I agree with some of this, and I think getting rid of all private contributions would solve a lot of it, but what do you consider qualification for the job? Obama's a young guy (which works in his favor in my opinion), and relatively untried previous to becoming president in terms of executive experience. Still, and admittedly I'm a fan, I don't see how he's failing in his job, and the only people who I've heard strongly insisting that he is are Fox News talking heads and people holding misspelled placards. Also, unlike Bush, Obama hasn't fully surrounded himself with friends and yesmen.

[Phatman]

I don't really care how long you've been saying it, it aligns you in my mind with the fruits out there calling for impeachment (over what?) who harp on the point of his name having been stated as Barry Soetoro when he was a kid. His nickname is Barry, yeah, but it had always been, and I heard that his father's nickname was Barry before him. Maybe you're not using it in that context, but that's the same offhand manner in which those nuts use it.

You could try to categorize me with those people, whose positions I am familiar with, but you'd be wrong. I will continue to call our President "Mr. President", "President Obama" or "Barry". Even if I completely disagree with his ideas, I'd like to see our leaders make this a successful country, regardless of party affiliation.

My main beef isn't even with him, but the mindless thralls that follow him and defend him, no matter how inconsistant and hipocritical they are. They are no better than the tea-partiers, the Bush neo-cons, or any other group of unthinking, unquestioning, sheep that pollute this country---a nation of blue-pill swallowin' automotons.

[Buckyrig]

My main beef isn't even with him, but the mindless thralls that follow him and defend him, no matter how inconsistant and hipocritical they are.

Ok, can we at least agree that Reagan was the worst President since James Buchanan?

[Phatman]

That's the federal government. You said it was a state responsibility.

In this case,I was referring to response to dealing with the hurricane was under state jurisdiction; i.e. fed can't just march into a state and begin operations without permission of the governor. Were the levies forced upon LA at some point by the fed? I have no idea. I think in Katrina, their is plenty of blame to go around, just like this.

Nobody blames the President for the leak. The response to the leak and not movong more quickly is a leit topic of discussion. If this was a nuclear reactor in the desert somewhere and radiation was leaking for over a month, creating an eco-disaster, would the reaction, 'we'll let the power plant deal with it' be acceptable? This is no different to the wildlife and economy that is being destroyed. Could more be done? I think so, but I'm no expert. I do know that more could have been done to clean this up and that should be a priority that overtakes everything else that the available man-power of the federal government should be addressing. Heck, you have 10% unemployment in this country----pay all of the unemployed to get down there and start building sand walls, cleaning rocks, fish and birds ,etc.

[HaphazardJoy]

He was elected by voters who want him to reign in the dogs Bush let loose, and Big Oil is one of the biggest of those dogs. Failing to do THAT is what will lose him the next election. It's not about foreseeing a specific event, it's the common knowledge that industries like Big Oil, Wall Street, Medicine, and about a million others will rape the citizens of this country, and the world, without hesitation if it improves their bottom line. Government regulation is like a prison guard in OZ - it doesn't stop the raping, but it keeps it to a minimum.

That was just one of many reasons I voted for him.
I don't know how anyone can rightly expect him to reign in Big Corporate in a huge way. I'd love to see it happen, but let's be realistic: Big Corporate is endemic to how both major parties and the federal government in general works. Obama can't do it alone, and I can't even imagine what could sway hundreds of congressmen to pass bills to seriously regulate these areas. It's an uphill battle to pass financial reform, even after the recession being worsened by fraud and mistakes. I can't imagine the coming reform against the oil companies will go too much smoother, though public sentiment would allow Obama some wiggle room with executive orders in this area (in general, he's already busted his nut on executive action, and had good results, but incurred a lot of public backlash). Big pharma is a whole other big of worms, a lurking menace that controls way more than people would like to believe, and a driving force in the growing cost of medical care in this country, but they haven't had a financial collapse or an oil spill to allow for strong action against them with public support. Without public support, Obama would ruin his chance of reelection and damage the Democratic party's presence, and could ruin everything he's trying to do AND risk all of the progress made being overthrown by a tidal wave of Republican seats.

Absolutely agree these are major, worthwhile issues, don't know how realistic it is for him to tackle them now. If he seriously plans on making major changes there, it'll have to be in the later half of his second term.

[Buckyrig]

In this case,I was referring to response to dealing with the hurricane was under state jurisdiction; i.e. fed can't just march into a state and begin operations without permission of the governor. Were the levies forced upon LA at some point by the fed?

The Fed assumed responsibility for flood protection in the area in the 60s.

[Phatman]

Ok, can we at least agree that Reagan was the worst President since James Buchanan?

Of course not, when he's neighbors with Carter and Bush who are both far worse. They ought to sandblast Rushmore and just put Reagan up 4 times.

Now here's a curve ball*: I was against Kuwait and for Iraq in the first Gulf War---deal with it liberals!






*I will discuss this, if needed, at a future date

[Buckyrig]

We're reaping the Reagan Revolution right now.

And you know what, he's on the hook for the AIDS body count too.

And not even Bush was dumb enough to try to call ketchup a vegetable.

[Phatman]

The Fed assumed responsibility for flood protection in the area in the 60s.

So, your saying the massive federal government did something wrong and great disaster ensued? That the states would have done it better? Does Ron Paul have any relatives in your area that you can campaign for? I think you've turned, just like Vader.

[HaphazardJoy]

You could try to categorize me with those people, whose positions I am familiar with, but you'd be wrong. I will continue to call our President "Mr. President", "President Obama" or "Barry". Even if I completely disagree with his ideas, I'd like to see our leaders make this a successful country, regardless of party affiliation.

My main beef isn't even with him, but the mindless thralls that follow him and defend him, no matter how inconsistant and hipocritical they are. They are no better than the tea-partiers, the Bush neo-cons, or any other group of unthinking, unquestioning, sheep that pollute this country---a nation of blue-pill swallowin' automotons.

Fair enough.
Maybe this is just the people we know and the places we frequent, but I feel like I'm the only one saying: "Hold on, he's doing a good job!". I'm not seeing this mindless tide in favor of Obama. To be fair there though, I generally avoid the news networks and people that watch the opinion shows in general. I see the Tea Party folks being inconsistent and hypocritical, but it's hard to miss them.

[Buckyrig]

So, your saying the massive federal government did something wrong and great disaster ensued? That the states would have done it better? Does Ron Paul have any relatives in your area that you can campaign for? I think you've turned, just like Vader.


there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) - Ron Paul



Ron Paul's We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379.IH:)


The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

The man has zero freedom credentials. Ditch the guy already.

[Phatman]

We're reaping the Reagan Revolution right now.

I know. Isn't it great that the Cold War is over?

[Buckyrig]

I know. Isn't it great that the Cold War is over?

Reagan didn't end the Cold War, the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team did.

[Biofungus]

Reagan didn't end the Cold War, the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team did.
I thought Murphy Brown did it?

[L Jamal]

I thought Murphy Brown did it?
It was Chuck Norris and baby Vin Diesel

[theflash]

Chuck Norris is in his 70s and I still wouldn't want to fight that old dude!

[Biofungus]

Chuck Norris is in his 70s and I still wouldn't want to fight that old dude!
Chuck Norris is a burly 32 and don't you forget it!

[dano]

Heck, you have 10% unemployment in this country----pay all of the unemployed to get down there and start building sand walls, cleaning rocks, fish and birds ,etc.

Part of what Obama suggested in his address was that they look at the feasibility and practicality of all their options.
I have to think it's a waste of resources to commit to clean up when the well hasn't been capped. It'd be constant recontamination.

And it's impossible to block off the entire gulf coast. If you cant do that the oil will penetrate any gaps as it already has with the boom. There is no stopping it; Jindal can moan all day long about how nothing was done but nothing can be done. It's not a tanker with a finite amount of crude - it continues to blast millions of gallons with no forseeable end.

Sometimes it's hard to accept that there is no human effort that can solve X problem especially when it's your butt on the line.

[L Jamal]

I have to think it's a waste of resources to commit to clean up when the well hasn't been capped. It'd be constant recontamination
Who wants practically when there's a crisis at hand?!!!!

Obama won largely for being an intellectual who considers a problem before jumping at a solution. Now we're condemning him for not acting quickly to solve a problem without a real solution.

America is fickle.

[Buckyrig]

America is fickle.

Nice euphemism.

[dano]

Nobody blames the President for the leak. The response to the leak and not movong more quickly is a leit topic of discussion. If this was a nuclear reactor in the desert somewhere and radiation was leaking for over a month, creating an eco-disaster, would the reaction, 'we'll let the power plant deal with it' be acceptable? .
Heh! If it were a reactor leak we actually COULD act faster and the goverment probably DOES have manpower, experts and equipment to deal with it. Not only does the military use reactors for powering stuff, we've got a whole lot of planning done if there's a nuclear attack.

Obama has little choice but to let BP deal with it by law and by practicality.
I assume you saw his press conference; the government has nothing in manpower, equipment or intellect to solve this issue. BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and other oil companies ARE the experts with all the equipment.
We don't have 10,000 miles of boom in a bunker in Nevada. Dr. Manhattan is not in Obama's back pocket.
I don't understand what it means when people suggest he should have acted faster or done more.

[HaphazardJoy]

I don't understand what it means when people suggest he should have acted faster or done more.

It means they don't understand the issue and want the President to have made some grand face-saving, but ultimately meaningless, gesture.

[Phatman]

Heh! If it were a reactor leak we actually COULD act faster and the goverment probably DOES have manpower, experts and equipment to deal with it. Not only does the military use reactors for powering stuff, we've got a whole lot of planning done if there's a nuclear attack.

Obama has little choice but to let BP deal with it by law and by practicality.
I assume you saw his press conference; the government has nothing in manpower, equipment or intellect to solve this issue. BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and other oil companies ARE the experts with all the equipment.
We don't have 10,000 miles of boom in a bunker in Nevada. Dr. Manhattan is not in Obama's back pocket.
I don't understand what it means when people suggest he should have acted faster or done more.

The manpower is overseas. Cleaning up the mess is a task too big for BP. Let them deal with the leak and try to do something with the oil. It's not like nobody has experience cleaning these things up.

[Phatman]

It means they don't understand the issue and want the President to have made some grand face-saving, but ultimately meaningless, gesture.

Here ya go---recall our National Guard and have them assist in the clean-up---quick, face-saving, productive. Put the unemployed to work cleaning the beaches and helping get rid of the oil. Here's a great public works project handed to this guy where he can kill two birds with one stone and nobody in his Administration can come up with it. An expensive solution?---yes. Here's a way to pay for it----yank the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan and save us a ton of money to pay for it. You know this guy promised to do that anyway, didn't he?

[Buckyrig]

You know this guy promised to do that anyway, didn't he?

Actually, he didn't.

He promised to wind down Iraq, not Afghanistan.

[HaphazardJoy]

As already pointed out, they really can't begin cleaning up in any major way until the leak is fixed. All they can do now is work to contain it, which THEY ARE doing. The Coast Guard is all over setting up protecting shorelines as they can already and private oil cleaning and containment companies are already at work.

[Great Scott]

It means they don't understand the issue and want the President to have made some grand face-saving, but ultimately meaningless, gesture.
No, what it really means is the Obama haters are delighted to have some mud to throw at him, no matter that the "mud" has no basis in logic or bearing on the real situation at hand. If he had made a "grand face-saving, but ultimately meaningless, gesture" the FOX Noise crowd would be criticizing him for wasting his time with an effort he cannot have any real effect on.

[Phatman]

As already pointed out, they really can't begin cleaning up in any major way until the leak is fixed.

Uh, why? Do you think the oil that has leaked out is going to be any easier to get rid of once this thing is capped at the end of the summer or early fall? What if they can't cap it? Do you wait until this oil deposit has completely drained into the ocean before you clean anything? That's just stupid.


All they can do now is work to contain it, which THEY ARE doing. The Coast Guard is all over setting up protecting shorelines as they can already and private oil cleaning and containment companies are already at work.

Are they really containing it? Get real. They might be trying. They need a lot more manpower on this problem than the Coast Guard can provide.

[Phatman]

No, what it really means is the Obama haters are delighted to have some mud to throw at him, no matter that the "mud" has no basis in logic or bearing on the real situation at hand. If he had made a "grand face-saving, but ultimately meaningless, gesture" the FOX Noise crowd would be criticizing him for wasting his time with an effort he cannot have any real effect on.

Why does it mean that you hate the guy, if you criticize him or his actions? I think he's wrong on just about everything, but I don't hate him. If any network offered an unbiased presentation of the news I would actually watch it. That doesn't exist in the USA. The fourth estate is dead here. Infotainment killed it.

[Phatman]

Actually, he didn't.

He promised to wind down Iraq, not Afghanistan.

July 2011 is his pull out date if Afghanistan. Anybody want to take bets that this won't be happening? We're preparing for a two front war with Iran---that's the whole reason we're still there.

[Buckyrig]

July 2011 is his pull out date if Afghanistan.

That shit is caveat-laden. It's all about wiggle room to deal with shifting public sentiment.

[Buckyrig]

Why does it mean that you hate the guy, if you criticize him or his actions? I think he's wrong on just about everything, but I don't hate him. If any network offered an unbiased presentation of the news I would actually watch it. That doesn't exist in the USA. The fourth estate is dead here. Infotainment killed it.

PBS

[Phatman]

PBS

The problem with PBS is lack of immediacy. Still, I think there are some great resources there.

[Phatman]

That shit is caveat-laden. It's all about wiggle room to deal with shifting public sentiment.

...or stalling until we attack Iran.

[HaphazardJoy]

Uh, why? Do you think the oil that has leaked out is going to be any easier to get rid of once this thing is capped at the end of the summer or early fall? What if they can't cap it? Do you wait until this oil deposit has completely drained into the ocean before you clean anything? That's just stupid.

Erm, are you even paying attention to this situation? The current efforts are simply attempts to reduce/divert the flow of oil until a relief well can be drilled by BP. The capping attempts have already failed. Once the oil has a better outlet to flow from, it'll be much easier to end this problem. That being said, why the hell would they clean a coastline of oil just so they could do it again next week? Containment and protection of vulnerable areas are the key here, not removal.

Are they really containing it? Get real. They might be trying. They need a lot more manpower on this problem than the Coast Guard can provide.

Of course, no amount of manpower in the world would fully solve this, but barriers in the right areas can greatly reduce the impact of this spill. If it was a simple matter of allocating simple work and resources, do you really think it wouldn't have already been done, regardless of who was in charge?

What the hell are you on about man?

[Phatman]

Erm, are you even paying attention to this situation? The current efforts are simply attempts to reduce/divert the flow of oil until a relief well can be drilled by BP. The capping attempts have already failed. Once the oil has a better outlet to flow from, it'll be much easier to end this problem. That being said, why the hell would they clean a coastline of oil just so they could do it again next week? Containment and protection of vulnerable areas are the key here, not removal.

I believe they've already started to drill two relief wells. Will that work? Hopefully. Again, I think we are in uncharted territory here. It would be a good idea to clean as much up as you can, as often as you can, wherever you can.

If it was a simple matter of allocating simple work and resources, do you really think it wouldn't have already been done, regardless of who was in charge?

Nope. I have no faith in anybody in the leadership of this country to manage resources successfully in any crisis. That's not ads much of an "Obama issue", it's a bureaucracy issue. Again, cleaning up what is coming in now and not waiting is a good idea no matter what warped logic your mind is trying create to defend the right's criticism of President Obama. Again, oil spill---not his fault. Not doing everything possible to clean it up or deal with it---his fault. Bringing in the guy who made Titanic and Avatar for advice is just the cherry on the top of this sundae of failure.


What the hell are you on about man?

I'm mainly pissed about the Lakers knocking the Suns out of the play-offs and taking it out on Obama, who picked the Lakers.

[L Jamal]

I believe they've already started to drill two relief wells. Will that work? Hopefully. Again, I think we are in uncharted territory here. It would be a good idea to clean as much up as you can, as often as you can, wherever you can.
Relief wells are the only thing that's ever been proven to work. It's foolish that they are not required.

[dano]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100603/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2397
"The idea that Tony Hayward was dining on Gulf seafood in a restaurant that's suing his company for killing off Gulf seafood is, well, kind of funny and slightly shocking. But what's probably more shocking is that all three men apparently walked out of Eleven 79 without any punches being thrown."

[dano]

Here ya go---recall our National Guard and have them assist in the clean-up---quick, face-saving, productive. Put the unemployed to work cleaning the beaches and helping get rid of the oil. Here's a great public works project handed to this guy where he can kill two birds with one stone and nobody in his Administration can come up with it. An expensive solution?---yes. Here's a way to pay for it----yank the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan and save us a ton of money to pay for it. You know this guy promised to do that anyway, didn't he?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/03/oil.spill.guard/index.html?hpt=T1
"Last month, the Pentagon approved the use of up to 17,500 National Guard members to help in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill relief efforts, at the request of governors in four states. But only about 1,400 have been actively engaged.

In Louisiana, 1,100 of the 6,000 authorized National Guard have been deployed.

Alabama is using just 280 troops out of an authorized 3,000. Mississippi has called 70 Guard members into active duty out of an available 6,000, and Florida has only seven National Guard troops on oil-spill duty out of an authorized 2,500.

A Louisiana state spokesman said that the initial mobilization of the Guard has been small, but is increasing as more containment and clean-up projects are approved.

"There are different missions waiting for approval by the Coast Guard and BP," said Kyle Plotkin, spokesman for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, in an e-mail to CNN.

The federal government has agreed to pay for National Guard troops used in federally approved projects. State governors can activate their respective National Guard troops, using state funds. The Pentagon has granted all state assistance requests received to date, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

[Phatman]

Our Epic Foolishness By BOB HERBERT

If a bank is too big to fail, it’s way too big to exist. If an oil well is too far beneath the sea to be plugged when something goes wrong, it’s too deep to be drilled in the first place.

When are we going to stop behaving so stupidly? We nearly wrecked the economy and we’re all but buried in debt. But we can’t break up the biggest banks, and we can’t raise taxes. Now we’re fouling the magnificent Gulf of Mexico and ruining entire communities along the southern Louisiana Coast.

And, by the way, we’re still fighting a futile war in Afghanistan that we’ve been fighting with nonstop futility for nearly a decade. (I’m sure the troops saddled with this thankless task were thrilled to see fans and teams demonstrating their undying support for their efforts by wearing fancy baseball caps on Memorial Day.)

For a nation that can’t stop bragging about how great and powerful it is, we’ve become shockingly helpless in the face of the many challenges confronting us. Our can-do spirit was put on hold many moons ago, and here we are now unable to defeat the Taliban, or rein in the likes of BP and the biggest banks, or stop the oil gushing furiously from the bowels of earth like a warning from Hades about the hubris and ignorance that is threatening to destroy us.

BP and the Obama administration have been equally clueless about halting the millions of gallons of oil that have flowed into the gulf since the Deepwater Horizon explosion more than a month ago. President Obama’s top adviser on energy policy, Carol Browner, unintentionally underscored the monumental futility of the response in a comment she made on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“This is obviously a difficult situation,” said Ms. Browner, “but it’s important for people to understand that from the beginning, the government has been in charge.”

Got that? No one has been able to bring the crisis under control, and no one expects it to be brought under control soon, but the important thing for us to know is that the government has been in charge of this epic failure all along.

However and whenever the well gets capped, what we really need is leadership that calls on the American public to begin coping in a serious and sustained way with an energy crisis that we’ve been warned about for decades. If the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history is not enough to bring about a reversal of our epic foolishness on the energy front, then nothing will.

The first thing we can do is conserve more. That’s the low-hanging fruit in any clean-energy strategy.

It’s fast, cheap and easy. It’s something that all Americans, young and old, can be asked to participate in immediately. In that sense, it’s a way of combating the pervasive feelings of helplessness that have become so demoralizing and so destructive to our long-term interests.

People have talked about energy conservation for the longest time. But we have dawdled on making vehicles more fuel-efficient and weatherizing our homes and insisting that commercial buildings be more energy efficient, and so on. Turn those thermostats down a couple of degrees in the winter and up in the summer. Figure out ways to have a little fun while doing it.

We also need a carbon tax. The current crisis is the perfect opportunity for our political leaders to explain to the public why this is so important and what benefits would come from it.

Above all, I’d like to see the creation of a second Manhattan Project that would lead us in a few years to an environment in which alternative fuels are abundant, effective and affordable. We are a pathetically weak player in that game right now.

Instead of staring mesmerized at the tragedy in the gulf, like spectators at a train wreck, we should be trying to regain that innovative can-do spirit that made America the greatest of nations.

All around us is the wreckage of our failure to master the challenges confronting us. We see it in the many millions of Americans who remain out of work and whose hopes are not rising despite all the talk of economic recovery. We see it in the schools where teachers are walking the plank by the scores of thousands because of state and local budget problems.

We see it in the shrinking middle class and in the black community where depressionlike conditions are fostering not just a sense of helplessness, but despair.

What’s needed is dynamic leadership (it doesn’t have to come from the top) to reinvigorate the spirit of America and turn that sense of helplessness around.

I disagree with a little of this but the major points are on the money.

[Biofungus]

BP needs to dump a bunch of penguins, seals and otters into the mess to soak it up.
I stand by this solution.

[RandallFlagg]

I say the gov't should buy thousands of Shamwows and use them to soak it up. If Vince can operate them, anyone can!

[L Jamal]

I say the gov't should buy thousands of Shamwows and use them to soak it up. If Vince can operate them, anyone can!
NOOOO! That would soak up the water not the oil.
We'd be left with all oil and no water.
But at least we'd be able to get to the oil easier.

[Aidy]

[QUOTE=L Jamal]NOOOO! That would soak up the water not the oil.
We'd be left with all oil and no water.
But at least we'd be able to get to the oil easier.[/QUOTE

hmmm, oily fish.

[HaphazardJoy]

The government "being in charge" bit is more about PR than fact. The government is in charge in the way that some workplaces have managers who have no depth in the technical work that their subordinates do, they're just there to remind people to do their job.

Know what kind of pisses me off? This new siphon attempt. Even if it wasn't a marginal failure, they only planned on pumping just so hard, they only wanted to pump up oil, not seawater, so they'd continue to allow a small amount to spill out. Makes sense on their part, but then wouldn't their having to filter out seawater after the fact THEIR PROBLEM to deal with?!

[dano]

Here you go Phatman!
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/08/smallbusiness/bp_hiring_unemployed/index.htm
BP hires the unemployed for clean up!

[Phatman]

Here you go Phatman!
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/08/smallbusiness/bp_hiring_unemployed/index.htm
BP hires the unemployed for clean up!

I think they're coming here and stealing my ideas. It's even better that BP is paying them.

[dano]

until they get that oil disease and have no insurance to pay for it cuz their unemployed

[Biofungus]

They can all go and live with Kevin Costner.

[theflash]

They can all go and live with Kevin Costner.

Wait...are you talking about post-apocalyptic mailbag carrying Postman Kevin Costner or webby toed asshole-ish boat driving Waterworld Kevin Costner?

Cause...those are NOT the same Kevin Costner.

[Biofungus]

Costner testified before congress yesterday that basically, he could clean up the oil spill in the gulf :)

(well, the company he invested 26million dollars in could, anyway)

[dano]

sub paragraph 3.4.1.1 - Costner owns the movie rights!

[theflash]

Costner testified before congress yesterday that basically, he could clean up the oil spill in the gulf :)

(well, the company he invested 26million dollars in could, anyway)


Hmmm. Is that the hay guys from the trailer park in Alabama? I say give em a shot. I mean really. It's not like they're gonna make it worse by trying something radical at this point, things are already so fucked up they might as well.

[Biofungus]

Hmmm. Is that the hay guys from the trailer park in Alabama? I say give em a shot. I mean really. It's not like they're gonna make it worse by trying something radical at this point, things are already so fucked up they might as well.
Nah, supposedly this ocean eco-company Costner invested like 26 million dollars in, has developed a filter pump that can clean 200 gallons of sea water an hour or something, and BP has 6 of them "waiting" (ie they say they're going to test them, after they exhaust other options), and Costner is saying they should use them right now.