OT: Oil Spill. There are two men...

ide quoted text -

Which "you" are you referring to? I wasn't looking for a conspiracy theory regarding Bin Laden and the oil well accident. I was asking for a credible link that puts GW Bush 41 in a meeting with Bin Laden's brother on 9/11 as claimed. If it were true, given the liberal media here, one would think we'd all have heard it from the mainstream media. The only place I've seen it is repeated by 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

Obama does not want help, or to end the crisis. They get more mileage and publicity out of if than if they shut it off today. Was it Rahm Emanuel who said, " Never let a good crisis go to waste."?

Several civilians have come up with simple ideas, such as spreading hay. Cheap, simple. But, the government says they will "take it under advisemsent, and get back to them" meaning that if there's no drama on the soap opera, no one will watch.

Steve

visit my blog at

The issue was experience and competence, not integrity, honesty, or whether the individual likes puppies.

Consider Richard Nixon. He brought an end to the Viet Nam war and opened up relations with China (every time I go to Harbor Freight I thank Tricky Dick). By all objective measures, a pretty good president.

But most thought he was a crook.

The public, in retaliation, elected the most righteous man that was running: Jimmy Carter, and a more incompetent buffon would be hard to find. His presidency was a disaster, but his morality was untouchable, just the reverse of Nixon.

So, if you choose someone who makes you feel good over someone who can actually, you know, run things, you're screwed.

Note I'm not saying a person can't be good AND competent; I'm saying that between the two, I'll take competency.

After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Jimmy's major attraction, brought forth by the media because nobody outside of Georgia had ever heard of him, was SMALLER GOVERNMENT!! (No terrorist attacks or oil spills in Georgia).

Yeh, that's what I said when Reagan ran for pres. Nobody every got bent out of shape over Ronnie ignoring the AIDS epidemic 'cause the only ones killed for quite a while were gay men and then kids with hemophilia.

Wonder what Monica and Paula are doin' these days.

Please don't take this as a complaint, but Sarah Pahlin has been strangely quiet these days...isn't she the one who knows how to handle oil companies?

Continuing on with the discussion of the competence of Obama's picks, just yesterday he announced a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to investigate the causes of the recent oil spill and make recommendations for changes in policy. This commission consists of seven members.

Member #1 (Murray) is Dean of Harvard's engineering school. He's an expert in optics. Member #2 (Reilly) is an environmental scientist with a sub-specialty in oil spills.

So far, pretty good.

Member #3 (Beinecke) is an environmental activist and has often urged a total ban on offshore drilling. Member #4 (Graham) is a former Florida governor who led the fight opposing offshore drilling in his state Member #5 (Boesch) professor of environmental science Member #6 (Ulmer) University chancellor Member #7 (Garcia) former chief lawyer for NOAA.

You'll note that the commission is long on policy wonks and short on technical expertise.

More info:

"HeyBub" wrote in news:j8mdnQfV7rac4oPRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I'm not yet retired. I can't go and fish for the bona fides of all these guys. Thus I take your words for it. I know your words have a political color. That's fine. Mine usually do have a color too, I think a complimentary one. I hope you don't mind. I think this is a plite discussion!!

So according to you there are a bunch of technical experts. Of course there are also "policy wonks" (your words), or maybe "politicians" (?) on that committee. After all they are (to be charged) with formulating policy. There are also lawyer types, presumably they know or should know how to formulate laws/regulations. Altogether, aren't these the types of people who should formulate policy? I don't think it should be only oil company execs, including experts in sailing?? Laws and regulations should follow, and Congress should have a voice in it. And maybe after that, the courts. Who knows. I would like a setup (as exists in Holland) of a sort of pro forma trial before the SCOTUS to immediately figure out their opinion of constitutionality of a drastic change (if that comes forth) in current law/regulation.

The ultimate goal is to prevent a blowout like this to happen ever again. I am not an oil expert, but I have a suspicious feeling that we are lucky that this is happening in warm waters, where both evaporation and metabolism of oil is greater. An old rule of thumb says that for every

True, but he surely signed death warrants for execution while Governor. When he went to the Senate, I suspect he got light in the loafers (weak).

Kind of odd, don't you think? I mean a couple of frogmen with some explosives apparently could create a whole flock of BP spills. I suspect that's why the President wants all drilling to stop - to make sure the platforms are secure. We know that Somali pirates can board big ships with ease. I suspect that BP's anti-terrorism plan includes protection against walruses.

-- Bobby G.

Yes. That's great for financially saavy people who can ride through the troughs without having to touch their investments. The people SS was meant to protect clearly AREN'T the financially well-schooled and who would become a burden on society without some form of enforced saving for the future.

Except that with stocks, the risk is high. Ask BP, Worldcom, Enron and other stock holders whether they would rather have a lower rate of return or any money left at all. I was astounded to learn that many of AIG's risk assessors deliberately excluded the Great Depression from their risk calculations. That's like going to Monte Carlo or Vegas and pretending that

The stock market whizzes like to point to old statistics to attract the money for what's lately become a huge Ponzi scheme unrelated to the purpose of financing new businesses. It started when all sorts of hedge funds and alleged guarantees against risk appeared. Naked shorting comes to mind as the beginning of the end. The financial markets of the world are not as infallable as Wall Streeters would like to believe. When people can profit from bad things happening to others, the seeds of doom have been sown. Worse, still, is that the world markets are incredibly interlinked. Trouble in any one spot, like Greece, reverberates through the economy out of proportion to its actual weight.

What I believe will happen is that the folks who have socked away loads of tax deferred investments might find they were better off paying the taxes when they got the money. When the US runs out of magic tricks to pay its debts, it won't have much choice but to grab up all the money it can by raising the tax rates - just as boomers start drawing on those funds to stay alive. Something like BP's big spill can be the lead domino in a very seriously bad chain of events for the stock market. There's a big disconnect between what government is doing FOR the elites and doing AGAINST middle class.

-- Bobby G.

On the other hand, the guy who found out what caused the Challenger disaster was a physicist.

Cindy Hamilton

In article , "Robert Green" wrote: S.

So enforce the savings yet give them options. BTW: if you have it for the long term (like 50 years from 15 to 65), riding through the troughs is not an issue. You keep taking the money out as needed and over the years of retirement you pull some principal out during the troughs, but you also take out less than you earn during the peaks.

Risks are not high unless you go out of your way to make them by not diversifying, etc. Also, all of the suggestions was that if you wanted to just stay in the "regular SS" you could. Interestingly enough, most state run pension plans allow you to manage your own portfolios to a certain extent.

Which should REALLY Scare the heck out of you since most of SS "asssets" are government bonds. Every penny of the SS surplus over the last nearly 30 years went to non-marketable treasury securities that will have to be paid back (with interest) sometime soon. We could soon make Greece look like a slightly overdrawn teenager compared to what we have in store, especially that hidden by SS surplus which did a real good job, for several administrations, of covering up the real debt.

Of course, assuming those funds are even available.

I disagree. Rumsfeld didn't so much SEND troops to get killed as he ALLOWED our warrior class to go do their thing: kill people and blow things up. Our military are volunteers and they knew the risks when they signed up, much the same as mountain climbers, sky divers, or race car drivers. To them, the opportunity to cause death and mayhem was worth the (slim) chance of a disability.

Good point. I would also argue that we need a war every decade or so to keep the tip of the spear sharp and to encourage enlistments. After all, who would want to be a fireman if there were no fires?

Another good point. But a stockholder can divest himself of any connection to policies he opposes. This is not the case with labor unions.

Also allowing "special interests" to participate in the election process is good. They act as a foil to the lunatic unwashed masses who emotionally enact "feel-good" legislation that causes calamity. California is an "initative and referendum" state which means the plebeians can pass anything if they get a big enough mob together. Limits on taxes, mandated smaller class sizes, Draconian environmental constraints, prohibition of products that cause distended stomachs in laboratory rats when they are force-fed five pounds of the substance daily, and so on, have turned the state into a disfunctional Rube Goldberg machine.

No, "special interests" are often the voice of reason (e.g., the NRA) in a world filled with slogans. It is altogether fitting and proper that their voices be heard.

The invaded Grenada to keep the world safe for second-tier medical students. Everyone knows that.

Actually there is always the implied (your) special interests. Mine, because they are by definition Good and Pure and Righteous, should have no restrictions.

Whatsamatter, don't like "I never met a corporation I didn't like more than a human" Roberts? Me neither. He has health problems, apparently, and has passed out twice for no discernable reason. Probably the control chip the US Chamber of Commerce has installed in his head that forces him to vote for Big Business in 9 out of 10 cases.

As for the spill, this very comprehensive Rolling Stone article talks about how Bush and Obama both share the blame in allowing the Gulf spill to occur.

-- Bobby G.

The Gulf spill happened where it did because the residents of that region are among the poorest and the least politically empowered to be found anywhere in the US. That makes them easy to take advantage of and that's why BP and many others set up shop there. They could drill without anyone giving them a lot of "gas."

If they tried drilling off the coast of Virginia, their are legions of ultra-rich, very politically connected people who would have sued them into a pillar of salt and forced them to provide *real* contingency plans and to have remediation equipment on close standby in case of a spill on the odd chance they got a permit to drill. No such impediments in the Gulf (at least the parts not near Florida, which also has clout and $.) and so the drilling party went non-stop.

I read something very, very spooky on a geology site that claimed the incredible pressure of the methane gas stored under the sea floor is causing fissures and ruptures to appear on the sea floor. As many of us who have done plumbing know, when you fix a dripping faucet, you can end up with a far greater problem like a joint failing behind a wall because the now the water pipes are under full pressure instead of the reduced pressure that a steady drip provides.

Some of the geologists wrote that even the worst of the BP leakage could be a drop in the bucket if that methane gas (IIRC, at 10,000PSI+) forces its way to the surface through a large enough natural fissure. Sort of like a nail in a tire causing a total blowout. The scariest part of the article was that it's clear we just don't know WHAT will happen because a lot of the data collected on undersea drilling is unshared proprietary information that has not made its way into the hands of scientists and regulators.

Just imagine. They finally cap the well and the whole seafloor around the drill hole ruptures and empties the contents of that huge undersea pocket of oil and methane into the Gulf. IOW, "We ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

-- Bobby G.

n> > This sure as hell isn't Obama's Katrina...Bush had at least 5 days of n> > dire warnings about Katrina and did NOTHING.

I have to agree although I'd reserve "nonsense" for flat earth-type claims. It's not true to say he did nothing. But he did have a Horse Association Guy at the helm of FEMA. It would be accurate to say he might have done better. That's true of most Presidents. It will certainly turn out that we will be able to say that about Obama. He could have done better with the Gulf spill, and that's becoming all too clear.

MMS was already a sinking rig when he came into office. Some of that was clearly Bush's fault. But the first thing an experienced manager SHOULD do when helming a new operation is survey all the weak spots and the hot spots. Fix the worst right away because that's where the most bang for buck is: stopping incompetents from further gross incompetency.

Obama didn't do that, according to the article cited elsewhere. It's probably on his agenda to do in the future, but the economy got in the way. At fault, in both cases, is the Devil's bargain that allows all Presidents to put their friends in office. It's a doubled-edged sword, though. If patronage was eliminated, the government truly could just stop working if the President couldn't put people he trusted in positions of power. Any fix is likely to be worse than the problem as it stands. The President needs to be able to fire his cabinet heads and even guys like four-star Gen Stan McHistory.

I can also see the big picture. Anything Obama did to bridle MMS could have seriously slowed down an already sick economy. We both know in this cartoon world of "I know you saved our lives last week, but what have you done for us lately?" Obama cleaning up MMS *before* the spill would have backfired. There was no good choice, only a lucky one. Obama didn't get lucky. Neither did Bush when it came to Katrina. Stuff happens.

It's usually not fair to blame the president of either party because the failures are usually of a deeply entrenched bureaucracy that has long ago learned how to insulate itself from control and accountability. If you think it's bad where you can see it like FEMA and the MMS, imagine how much money evaporates in black ops where there's almost no accountability.

FEMA was an agency in turmoil walking a delicate line when Katrina hit. Any joint operation, whether corporate, military, rescue or neighbor watch, operates in murky waters because of the differing expectations of the participants. The massive Bush-led reorganization of the established chain of command was probably something he HAD to do to break down the serious stovepipes that had evolved in the intelligence communities, but it had some predictably bad consequences. FEMA got caught squarely in the eye of that hurricane. Ironically, it may turn out to be a good thing in the long term.

I'm an optimist. I've seen lots of Guard and Reserve participation in disaster relief. Want to know how to make friends for life? Pull a flood stranded family AND their dogs and cats off a roof in a fast moving river. It's against the rules to load animals, but pilots do it because they have dogs and cats, too. In a world full of constant disaster we have actually made significant contributions and in exchange refined our own techniques for S&R ops by responding worldwide. And we've made worldwide friends for life doing so.

IOW, things really are getting better because we're getting smarter about how we do things and the tools we use keep getting better. GPS alone has changed the face of emergency relief, and it's one of a dozen helpful new technologies. As for the Gulf, barring seabed blowout, this too shall come to pass and the rest of the world's drilling operations will become safer.

Think back in your life. What taught you the most profound lessons? The ones that had profound consequences. For me it was that a gun is always loaded even when you're sure it's not, don't use spray Lysol and a lighter to torch bugs in your dorm room, don't drive after four vodka martinis, don't keep darkroom chemicals in old milk jugs and when refinishing an old, beautiful tabletop, you don't turn the house heat on for the first time in months while the varnish is still wet.

-- Bobby G.

There are two very distinct types of soldiers in Iraq (nearly wrote 'Nam). The lifers, who are the warrior class you speak of, and the reservists, who in many cases chose that path because it paid for college and came with good government benefits. The people in the latter group tell me that the mission in Iraq was to drive around in trucks and various other vehicles until they got blown up and either killed or sent home maimed. There was no clear end game in sight, no strategy, just a low level sort of constant chaos.

The warriors truly believe in the war and tell me that the Iraqis love them being there, and that they are told that every day by them. I tell them "what other choice do they have?" It's the smart thing to do for them to say "we love you" because the men standing in front of them each could kill

The reservists, on the other hand, especially the Stop-Loss ones on their fourth or fifth tour just want to go home to see if their kids still recognize them and if their job is still there. Lots of employers have been finding very clever ways to circumvent the laws that require them to hold the jobs of reservists open. Common sense says when you are away from work for four or five years, you've fallen off the promotion path and into limbo.

We can ALWAYS find enough work for the warrior class. The world has never been in a state of universal peace. But I get your point. Lifers also love war because it gives them a chance for faster promotions than peace time allows for.

Agreed. It's a sticky-wicket. Unions and corporations are quite different animals, though, and I think one has to be very careful when comparing the two. No union could possible hope to build a war-chest the size of Verizon's, Comcast or Wal-mart. Despite the claims, we're talking about two different things. I don't think unions should be able to donate to campaigns either, but then I never bought into the theory that money and free speech are the same.

It's a perversion of process. Lawmakers *should* be able to make hard decisions for the long term. Instead they jump on anything they can pander to bring in votes. We have a bad situation in that incumbents mostly do things to ensure they'll stay in power, not necessarily things that are good and needed. It may be that all of California's problems can be traced back to Howard Jarvis's Prop 13 which basically said "we want Cadillac government services, but we don't way to pay for them with taxes."

While I support the right to own firearms, I might have to disagree with you on how to classify the NRA. Their voice will be heard, whether they can "buy" candidates or not. I'd prefer that they not. I'll just point out that there are a lot of liberals that talk gun control, but sleep with a Glock on the nightstand. I used to be one of them until I decided I wasn't going to conform to a checklist agenda.

I've already had one friend (who works in the Senate!) tell me "I can't have friends who aren't willing to support gun control and go gun-free." So be it. Yes, innocent people are killed too often with guns, but on more than one occasion, having one has undoubtedly saved my life. I can't turn my back on a "friend" I owe my continued existence to.

-- Bobby G.

Whine on. I'll bet you were one of the guys like Harry Reid, proclaiming the war in Iraq is lost just a few years ago. Far from having no strategy or end game, it's winding down nicely. In fact, the course of the war would have been the same whether Obama or McCain was elected.

What a total crock. When Reagan came into office, the top federal tax rate was 70%. Combine that with state and local taxes and the most productive people had no incentive to produce or invest. Reagan cut that rate by more than half and a decade of malaise, high unemployment, and inflation were replaced by the re-birth of the American economy that was the envy of the world. And tax revenue did not decrease, it had a huge increase as the economy soared. While paying at a lower rate, far MORE federal revenue was coming in. The deficits of the Reagan years, which look like frugality compared to what Obama just did, were caused by large increases in SPENDING. And unlike today's spending, a lot of that money had a good purpose. It rebuilt our military, at a pace the Russians tried to match, but could not. That helped bankrupt them and end the Cold War, freeing hundreds of millions of people. But, for the usual reasons, I don't think Reagan will be getting a nobel prize. That honor is now reserved for those that are president for less than a month and those who make movies.

Only a liberal loon would try to lay Reagan cutting taxes off as a Ponzi scheme and never once mention out of control government spending, which is the real problem. Even under Clinton, the tax rates, though a little higher, were close to where Reagan had lowered them. And while I said for years the Republicans in Congress, together with Bush, should have been doing a lot more to reduce spending, the deficits under Bush were modest compared to what Obama and the boys are doing now. They like to point to the $1Tril plus deficit in the final year of the Bush administration and whine about how they inherited it. That is another total crock. Some $700bil of that deficit was the one time TARP money. It was NOT spending. It was loans to companies, used to buy stock, etc. Most of that has been paid back to the US treasury, including all of it by the major banks. Last time I checked, which was a long time ago, the treasury said that at most they had $180bil or so left that was still at risk.

Compare that to commrade Obama who is projecting $1 tril in deficits for the next DECADE. Was there a huge tax cut? I must have missed it. Of course the real source of that deficit is even more out of control spending that has been taken to a whole new level.

The checklist agenda explains a lot.

Once the US pulls out of IRAQ it will have the civil war it needed all along. no doubt the tailban will try to take over, and the surrounding countries dont want democracy in the area, it mioght spread and depose them....

the sad fact both of these wars are unwinnable just like vietnam...........

a great example of federal stupidity and waste