Polling, Politics And Policy

DemfromCt celebrates this CNN poll finding:

According to the poll, opposition to increased offshore drilling has grown 10 points since May and is now twice as high as it was in 2008. Fifty-eight percent of those questioned support a six-month moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf and other offshore sites; 68 percent favor increased regulation of the oil industry in this country.

DemfromCt appears to want to attribute this result to President Obama's speech:

Remember, the pundits opining on how Obama's speech sucked are the same people that explained to us how McCain won the debates.

I did not watch President Obama's speech and I know it was universally panned (by both Left and Right) stylistically. I thought the Left critique was interesting in that it raises a point that DemfromCt ignores - the President apparently did not argue for specific action, legislative or otherwise, in his speech.

Herein lies a problem with the Obama political strategy from the beginning of his Administration - very little political effort has been used to forward specific policies. The disconnect from the policy and the politics (and the polling) has clearly been, at least for me, the biggest flaw in the Obama Administration approach.

"Doing something" or being perceived as "doing something" is not the winning POLITICAL approach to governance. Doing something THAT WORKS is the key.

Now I am not at all familiar with the actual policy issues surrounding the Gulf spill issue, but I followed closely the economic stimulus issue of early 2009 and knew that the measure was simply inadequate (albeit better than nothing). Today we know that is true and we also know that the Obama Administration is between a rock and a hard place because they decided to play "deficit hawks" at the beginning of the year. Now, belatedly, the President and his team are making noises about more stimulus.

Too little, too late. Too much following the polls instead of working for policies that would lead to improvement in the polls.

And yes of course, things would be much worse with Republicans in charge, but that has nothing to do with evaluating what the Obama Administration has done, which on economic policy, has been mediocre at best. Both in terms of policy and politics.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Undocumented Harvard Student Can Stay in the U.S. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm glad the public is coming around (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:17:00 PM EST
    and sorry it took this dramatic demonstration of the risk to make it happen.

    More to your point, I am fairly sure it had NOTHING to do with Obama's speech. I think the public is ahead of Obama on this one. The public is not worried about keeping Gulf state oil economy running if it means disasters like this. I know it seems cold-hearted to the people of the region, not to mention the country,  that depend on that oil economy, and I wish I had easy alternatives to offer. It is in Obama's job description to worry about that, so to a certain extent I understand his dilemma regarding the moratorium.

    But yeah, I guess we cannot say this enough, because it does not seem to get through:

    Too little, too late. Too much following the polls instead of working for policies that would lead to improvement in the polls.

    The petroleum that comes from the GOM (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    keeps the US economy working. This is not a regional issue.

    That aspect of it is regional, yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    But the Gulf State politicians are talking about their own regional losses due to the moratorium.

    We should have a six month moratorium (none / 0) (#65)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    on the shipment of petroleum products to the eastern seaboard. Perhaps that would go a long way towards the understanding of how interconnected we all are.
    The ignorant sectionalism that passes for pseudo-intellectual liberalism floors me.

    Regarding the economy in general (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    We all said it at the time the stimulus was passed - it was the bare minimum that would have had a chance to work.  They gambled on that and we all lost big. Inexcusable, since most respected economists agreed it was not enough. I don't make this stuff up myself.

    What is the equivalent of the relief well for unemployment, now that the top hat and junk shot have not worked?

    0-Sell-0uts Cat F00d commission (1.50 / 2) (#16)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    trying to get more of that government baby into the bath tub to drown.

    at least the guy is being consistent and helping keep my little bitty HOPE flame doused.

    hopefully his soaring speeches in 2012 won't be packing elementary school gyms.

    remember clinton, from Hope AK? the guy just helping that p.o.s blanche lincoln get re-elected?

    I wonder what the next hope charlatan will have for a shtick?  



    Cat food? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Radix on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    That seems a little wasteful, perhaps some off brand kibble instead. :(

    Clinton (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    did the right thing.  Halter is NOT that much more liberal than Lincoln who is exactly the sort of democrat who can win in Arkansas.
    In addition to that he was being loyal, had promised her support before Halter was even in the race.

    Do you want him to be a back stabber?  How would that help the democratic party?


    Yawn - don't we know each (none / 0) (#83)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    other from kos?

    your conventional wisdom blather is as tiresome to me as my comments probably are to you.

    what next - you gonna tell me how electable kerry was, and how dean wasn't ??

    why don't you blame the DFH's for mondale losing while you're at it?

    sell outs like clinton and blanche are THE REASON the fascists do so well. when your "opponents" are traitors to those they supposedly represent, your job of ripping everyone off is that much easier.



    Ooh! (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    Well said!

    Of course, (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    The only economnist that mattered was that Nobel Laureate, Olympia Snowe:

    "On today's edition of CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged," Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe told CBS News' Bob Schieffer that a "range" of items must be removed from the stimulus bill before she would consider voting for it.
    Snowe cited funding for the national park service, the census bureau, cleaning up abandoned mines and providing funding for the US Marshals service, among other items.

    "I mean, the list goes on," she said

    And I might add, so does the recession.


    and another thing.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    How about showing Congressional Republicans and deficit hawk Dems the meaning of the word 'shakedown' ? There is not one of them that does not have federal spending helping his district.

    It's ridiculous to think that Obama's speech (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    and not the massive (Exxon Valdez every 4 or 5 days!) spill has led to this drop in support.

    Yeah. Like no one knew about it (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    until Obama told them.

    Probably for the Obama fans... (4.43 / 7) (#6)
    by lambert on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    ... that's actually true.

    C'mon, BTD, this is hardly fair (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lambert on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    You write:

    Herein lies a problem with the Obama political strategy from the beginning of his Administration - very little political effort has been used to forward specific policies.

    But did you "check the website"? [rimshot. laughter].

    Effort (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    "...little political effort has been used to forward specific policies"
    In the case of Afghanistan and other similarly unsavory enterprises, the Obama administration doesn't need to expend any effort whatsoever. It's full steam ahead.
    No problem.

    Imo (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    it won't matter how many people don't want offshore drilling to continue.

    The Obama administration will go ahead with it.

    They're going to try (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    That's pretty obvious at this point.  They didn't learn an effing thing watching the Bush administration telling the American people to eat devastation and STFU.

    The tragedy of BP's (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    continued oversight in the stopping of the oil geyser, its containment and clean-up lies in trusting and, indeed, permitting the very system and people who caused the calamity to attempt to fix it based on the assumption that the nation and BP's interests are the same. If one values evidence, BP's expertise has been demonstrated to be inadequate to the tasks at hand.  By intentionally not measuring the flow, and then acting on the low estimates, they put in place inadequate assets for the situation. Skimmer equipment will be available in July, more will be acquired and some are now being manufactured. Several attempts to cap the well failed, When a cap effort did work (based on BP information) they had inadequate  top-side resources.  Indeed, the pipe used in the capping  was sized to the Enterprise capacity, not the gusher. It seems that they wanted to wait and see if the cap worked before spending more money.  The apparent solution is the relief wells, yet we know that BP's expertise needed to be bolstered by  the president making them drill a second relief well, so it got a two-week delay in start. And, we are still dealing with intellectual property in the face of the calamity, such as review of access to the target well without mill or drill. And, BP has been the "general contractor", the relief wells are subcontracted out by a real expert, John Wright. The government, itself, would not be the driller, but we would know if BP and our intentions are the same, and that BP, for instance, does not have an overriding aim of retaining ownership of the well, its spilled oil or limiting its liability.  The escrow account is welcome and is among the efforts many of us have urged for many weeks.  Yes, there may be a quid pro quo, as in such matters as negligence findings and their consequences, but the disaster is at hand and citizens need government intervention against a rogue corporation.

    Well, I guess we should (3.50 / 2) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    put you in charge of this since you so clearly know much, much more about it than stupid old BP, Transocean, etc.  Why didn't we think of that sooner?

    Yeah! Put him in charge! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    He is saying what many who live in the destruction area and those who have been following this disaster have been saying. We might all think of paying attention to this since we are an incredibly interconnected society/economy.

    You seem comfortable sitting back and trusting in the Feds and BP to do the right thing and to respond to the on going clean up with competence and humanity.

    Glad you like BP so much - you are not alone. BP seems to be due for a bailout and welfare and rescuing. You think the EPA just "pops off" about possibly reassigning Corexit --not even about disallowing any dispersants altogether. No one in charge.

    This is day (what is it?) 60 since the blowout? And already people on the right and left are all AOK with the status quo.... the new status quo, that is. And if the relief well does not work the first or second try (as is common)? Then it will soon be the 160th or 260th or 444th day of the massive leak. But, ho-hum, let's just sit back and passively accept what BP is doing.

    On another note, I did not dislike Obama's big Oval Office Speech. He did it and that was important. What I would have liked to hear is what every last person could do to help. We could drive less, conserve energy more, eat lower on the food chain (a big one for energy conservation) and have home organic veggie gardens like Michelle does.


    Yes, by all means (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:28:15 PM EST
    let's do what the shrimpers and restaurant owners on the coast think should be done wiht a busted oil well.

    And no, I'm not "sitting back passively, ho-hum, and trusting," I've been following this pretty closely and the commentary from other oil folks-- virtually all of whom think the way BP has proceeded in trying to fix the well has been right, with the one exception that some think a third relief well might be advisable.

    EPA, yes, quite obviously "popped off" about the Corexit apparently without fully considering why it was being used and what the alternatives were or weren't.  They withdrew their objection, as you know, almost immediately.

    And no, it's not "common" that relief wells don't work on the first or second try.  And if you really think BP is trying to save money by not doing more relief wells and risking having this go on for another few months, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

    I want them to fix this, pay through the nose for all the people who've been screwed by their negligence, and then forbidden from ever operating in U.S. territory or waters ever again.


    Belittlement of me (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:24:12 AM EST
    or others on the coast may make you feel better, but your trust and reliance on BP is misplaced and some of the information that you have swallowed by following the situation so closely, as you claim, is surprisingly naive. Perhaps, because you have been using common sense.  And, when and how much of that quality  has been in evidence by BP to engender your confidence?  Of course, BP has some excellent engineers, but it seems clear that they have become subservient in critical ways and at critical moments to accountants, managers and risk-taking incentives.  It sounds to me that you, in fact, have some recently minted documents showing that you are the proud, new owner of the Brooklyn bridge, telling everyone who will listen that you want your life back so you can help the small people.

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    I'm following the situation through outsiders, such as the experienced oil people at the Oil Drum site.

    I have zero confidence in BP.  I have very great confidence in those independent and knowledgeable observers.

    I don't for one second belittle the concerns and anxieties of the people of the coast, who have been screwed and have no treason to trust anybody. I do not, however, have faith in the technical exepertise of shrimpers and restaurateurs on capping oil wells.

    Nor should you.


    Trust (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 10:40:40 PM EST
    Well not sure where you are getting your info, but the oildrum is a great site for keeping up with what the experts are saying. I posted a link the other day and others may have provided a link earlier.

    Have you been following oildrum? If not it may be a good idea, considering your concerns. Politicizing the event may give you comfort, but it does appear to be leading you down the wrong path, imo.

    But hey, if the GOP can do it so can some progressives.


    Thank you for the vote of (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 08:07:22 PM EST
    confidence, I will try my best and, certainly, do no worse.

    did KeysDan (none / 0) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:03:56 PM EST
    say anything inaccurate?

    Virtually every sentence (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:19:33 PM EST
    sorry but (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:41:00 PM EST
    your response is not specific enough for me to understand what you mean

    i see a number of statements in KeysDan's comment that are demonstrably true

    i also see a few other statements that may or may not be true - i do not possess as much background information as KD seems to have so i cannot judge

    & i see a few opinions that are KD's interpretations of events that he summarizes in several of his demonstrably true statements

    so if you don't mind the repeated question, specifically what does KD say that is inaccurate?


    Katrina. Nobody learned nuttin. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:14:57 PM EST
    What was the lesson?  Do NOT count on anybody else saving your bacon, so local and state governments should be prepared for the devestating problems they can forsee...the levee failures...oil spill accidents (this isn't the first in the gulf).

    There is a failure of both leadership and citizenship in the states most troubled by this catastrophe.  Primarily anti-tax, anti-government, anti-environmental, anti-science, anti-education know-it-alls, they cannot see the forest for the trees...even now!  

    Where are the local/state leaders who aren't complaining endlessly about 'not being rescued?'  What insurance did they buy with their taxes to protect their shores?  Where are the stockpiles of emergency oil-spill equipment in each state, parish, county?  Where are the local emergency management plans?  Are there any?  I can't tell by following the news.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    Are you calling this a natural disaster? It appears to be the GOP newspeak:

    Deep Thought

    by digby

    If you've been confused, as I have, about the bizarre statements coming from the usual suspects about the oil spill being a natural disaster, I think perhaps Rick Perlstein has cleared it up. He tells me this is actually a right wing redefinition of the term itself. It now means a disaster that happens to nature. Isn't that clever?

    Quite the opposite. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:26:15 PM EST
    I don't think my comments were that obscure, Squeeky.

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:34:51 PM EST
    9/11 no one learned nothing, if that is what you are talking about. When a thing has happened that has no apparent solution it cannot be stopped until the problem is solved. This could go on for years with all the best minds at it.

    It is the biggest oil disaster ever. It is not over.


    Two separate issues, in the (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:12:23 PM EST
    current case:  an oil spill which needs to be stopped and a cleanup along the shores and in the gulf...neither of which were prepared for by big oil or by governments, federal/state/local.

    Katrina exposed the unwillingness of the locals and the state to protect their city and their citizens by waiting for the Feds to fund and fix dikes they knew would not hold forever.  Sure enough...Katrina was a natural disaster, but the flooding of New Orleans was the fault of misfeasance and malfeasance by local citizens and local governments.

    No more.  No less.


    But I just saw a headline stating the (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    "Spill" won't fill the Superdome.

    Frick, this has been a literal (4.50 / 6) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:56:06 PM EST
    pain in this house for so long I just don't even want to talk about it because the loss and devastation is so ONGOING.  I just have to think about other things and do other things.  Obama's speech was a damned failure and a half.  I couldn't even bring myself to form an opinion or express one after he delivered it.  I rec'd some writings at DK, but if I focus on the reality for too long my head just explodes right now.  It wasn't the fecking speech though you blazing insane cultists, it's when the brown pelicans are all turning black and the sea turtle corpses keep washing up and no end in sight.

    The only action that would work (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 02:17:09 PM EST
    is to put a $3/gal tax on gasoline.
    Gas prices in this country are obscenely low.

    If we stopped (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    using gasoline in the US altogether we'd still have foreign countries like China using it to the hilt.  And we'd still have the US and other countries using other petro products to the hilt (plastics, etc).  And we'd still have oil spills.

    The problem that led to the BP oil spill was not the use of oil.  The problem was the lack of regulatory enforcement in both the Bush and Obama administrations that allowed BP to cut corners in drilling.


    Gas was $5/gal in Britain 30 years ago, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by observed on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:53:48 PM EST
    IIRC (I have a sibling living there).
    The US is the number one abuser of oil resources, so it makes sense to impact buying habits here.
    As far as China goes, I have read that the Chinese are very serious about finding alternative energy.

    You know those new energy saving (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:02:23 PM EST
    light bulbs that we are using now?  South Korea had them ten fecking years ago.  You want an A/C unit that is UNBELIEVABLY efficient, move to South Korea and buy one ten fecking years ago.  You want a solar hot water heater on the roof of your house, get in a time machine, go back ten years and hang out in South Korea.  Why hasn't the United States NOT evolved?  Because we didn't have to!

    Oops...can't type when frustrated :) (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    Not hasnt' the U.S. evolved......because it didn't have to.

    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:05:32 PM EST
    Because we didn't have to!
    And that attitude led to massive profits in the oil and auto industry. No wonder teevee took off like it did.

    What attitude? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    American consumers and citizens have no idea they have been behind little "piss ant" countries in being "the best".  The fact that our light bulbs and our appliances have been practically outdated junk in bright shiny packaging for over a decade is nothing to be proud of.  And I don't understand what teevee has to do with anything.  When I was in South Korea, they watch as much teevee as we do.

    Attitude (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    Big cars, gas guzzlers, and cheap electricity: that attitude. The same attitude that caused Schwarzenegger to design the Hummer after seeing the world conquerer teevee footage of desert storm. SUV's and the Hummer took off so regular americans could feel the glory about being #1.

    And as far as what the teevee has to do with it: the teevee was the engine that powered american consumerism, particularly the car and the friendly oil company.

    Americans identified with this image big time and hence the attitude. The attitude of American exceptionalism is related.


    Very serious (none / 0) (#64)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    Let us say that Joe and Jane Sixpack both are lucky enough to have a job. Each drive about 40 miles/day RT and each have a car that gets about 18 MPG. That means each use about 2.22 gals/day or
    both use about 5 gallons a day or about 25 gallons/week/work. Throw in errands and some modest weekend driving, a vacation trip or two and we have 40 gallons avg/week. Currently they are paying about $2.75 a gallon or $110 a week/$5720 a year.

    And they are strapped trying to pay the mortgage, buy food, pay the utilities and dress Little Sally and Johnny... Not to mention Doctor bills, school, etc....

    Now, you want to hit them with a tax increase of $6240 a year???

    It will have an impact alright. It will bankrupt them and drive the economy into depression.

    You know, I couldn't make stuff like your comment up.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    For someone who has been going on and on about a regressive federal sales tax for so many years, your pity for the working poor seems laughable.

    Obviously gas expenses would be deductible, as they already are, refundable, or offset by employer tax deductions/reimbursement schemes.

    But we get your selective sympathy: no one is messing with my gas prices, or regulating fuel efficiency in the good ole USA. That is straight GOP 101 for as long as I can remember.


    Do some math (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    Assume a family is paying $800 a month plus co-pays/deductibles/and Rx drugs... That's easily $12,000 a year..which goes away with my single payer system... Say an 8% sales tax and the same family would have to spend, exclusive of unprepared food and utilities, around $140,000 to be equal.

    Looks like a good deal to me, who is paying around $12-14K for me and my spouse for "free Medicare."

    And we're not spending $140K like you city slickers from New York City.



    I bet they would find ways to use (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    less gas. Car pooling, for one example. Yes it is inconvenient and not many will do it until the alternative is just too expensive. We have been talking about this problem for 40 years and just have not had the proper incentives to fix it. Seems e won't do anything  about it until  the pain is so high that there is no alternative.

    You assume (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    Did I mention one takes one Johnny to Junior High and the other to day school? Car pool that.

    You know, reading and listening to city folks who have no idea that in a vast portion of this country there is no public transportation and jobs require people to drive as much as 100 miles per day RT.... in some cases more... just convinces me that we have evolved into two separate countries that, in centuries past, would split into little kingdoms similar to the Balkans..

    And we know how that worked out.

    BTW - There is going to have to be a technological breakthrough of the "semiconductor" in electronics size and impact to solve this. And bankrupting people and spinning the country into a depression is not a way to do it.

    And, of course, gross tax receipts would actually go down as the depression deepens.

    Which seems to be Obama's plans.


    I don't know why I am bothering (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:33:18 PM EST
    But here goes. There are many other kids in the school classes, all of whose parents would be in the same boat. Think a few of them are not smart enough to arrange car pools?

    As others have already said, we have not worked these problems out because we have not had to.  


    People drive 100 miles because they (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    can. It's been 60 years of urban planning and real estate development designed to FORCE people into cars. Don't think I'm not aware of the problem.
    However, it is far too  late for a sane energy policy to be pain free---that chance was lost under Reagan.
    MY viewpoint is that fossil fuels have allowed the earth to support about 5 billion more people than the period prior to their use.
    We are probably at or near peak oil production, just as the demand from China and India is heading way up.
    It's a totaly f*cking catastrophe, without even taking into account global warming.

    We need massively high gas prices, along programs and/or tax subsidies to recentralize populations so their transportation needs are less.


    Man made global warming is a hoax (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    and people drive that far because they have to do that to have a job. Not because they want to spend 4-5 hours a day in their car.

    Fly over country does exist.

    And we have been running out of oil for my entire life.

    Your desire for central planning merely demonstrates your desire for.... gasp!... a socialist/marxist type society.  Nothing wrong for that desire and it worked fairly well for 60 years or so in Europe as long as we played policeman and let the children play without paying for it...


    We need massively high gas prices, along programs and/or tax subsidies to recentralize populations so their transportation needs are less.

    Change a few words and you have Stalin resettling the peasants... Only killed a few million or so. Wonder what the cost would be here when people started rioting over the tax and spend policies?


    BS (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    people drive that far because they have to do that to have a job. Not because they want to spend 4-5 hours a day in their car.

    VIrtually nothing has been done to wean this country off gas guzzlers and gasoline because the price of gasoline has been negligible for most drivers.

    Once the price of gasoline is high enough that people have to think about the personal financial cost incurred by driving a car, polluting and using an extremely toxic substance on a daily basis, then the US will move away from fossil fuel.

    Simple, fool proof.


    You live in New York City (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 07:17:29 PM EST
    and I think you have lived there all your life.

    Simply put, you, I believe, have no experience outside the sidewalk canyons and subways...

    That should give you pause when emoting over "what to do."

    The government can push technological change without destroying peoples lives and the country.

    Of course that removes the "crisis" driver for you to decide where people live, etc.

    I award you a seat next to Observed.


    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

    Give It A Rest (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    Your GOP talking points are tired and now oil soaked.

    Please tell me why the US has had a history of absurdly low efficient cars, while extremely long driving distances compared to europe.

    There is absolutely no reason for the US to lag behind the rest of the world because oil automakers bottom lines pay for congress critters to do their bidding.

    Since the generous giving lining the pockets of US congresscritters is not going to stop, the only way US consumers are going to stop supporting the oil and antiquated auto industry is when it becomes expensive to drive.


    Since you don't have the experience (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    of wide open spaces it is hard for you to understand.

    Actually gasoline was dumped/burned in the early days. The important results were various lubricants.

    When the internal combustion engine came along and fitted to buggies there was some competition from alcohol but alcohol quickly lost out because as an energy producer it is about 70% of gasoline. Plus, alcohol has an affinity for water, making it difficult to store in bulk and/or transport by truck or pipeline. And, you cannot easily detect water in alcohol because of that. Gasoline floats on water and you can easily see "water slugs" in jars of gasoline with water contamination by simply shaking it and looking.

    The Interstate system was a copy of Germany's autobahn, designed to move people and material from point A to B cheaply and at high speed. Trains suffered from high prices and the lack of local transportation after the arrival at the station.

    Simply put, cars made travel cheap, easy and fun.

    As for "efficiency" you might want to measure the ability of moving a payload between a MG or Fiat and a Ford. You won't like the result.

    So you'll just have to accept that the public will not accept $7.00 gasoline without a huge revolt. Politicians, and Obama is not a politician, he sees himself as a "Leader" will not support it.

    And the ones who do will be replaced.


    BS (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:06:40 PM EST
    Since you don't have the experience of wide open spaces it is hard for you to understand.

    The only think that I find hard to understand is how you can imagine anyone is buying your BS, but thanks for being our personal portal to wingnuttia. It is a luxury service you are providing.


    Well,I am here to serve (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:10:34 PM EST
    and educate.



    This is probably the first (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    time I've ever agreed with Jim but he's right- not about Global Warming but about the Gas Tax- its suicide and frankly seems out of touch with those who live in Areas where driving is a necessity- seriously, how exactly is someone who lives 10-15  miles much less 45-50 miles from there job supposed to get to and from work if they don't live in one of the few areas in the country with good public transit- I biked to work in High School but somehow I'm guessing doing the same to a job where being sweaty would be a problem isn't acceptable.  Listening to some liberals talk about the Gas Tax is like listening to some conservatives talk about privatizing social security- both are spurred by a looming crisis and both have formulated solutions that are not just politically unpalatable but downright suicidal.

    BS (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    The only reason we have not developed alternative energy with renewable sources is because the price of oil is cheap, and the oil industry's extremely powerful grip on congress keeps it the cash registers ringing.

    It is better to plan ahead, imo. Short term selfish thinking, seems to be what you are calling for, without any concern for future generations or the environment. Ironically that is the same type of GOP thinking for dismantling Social Security. Your comparison of liberal's calling for a gas tax and conservatives gutting Social Security falls flat on its face.


    "Stalinism"!? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 12:53:59 AM EST
    Talk about wingnut talk radio level drool to match the unhinged hyperbole of a Beck!

    See! I told ya: them Democrats is really communists, I knowed it right along!

    Correct me if Im wrong Jim, but aren't you the el commandante who's been calling for mandatory military service? As if a scenario like that wouldn't entail coercion and massive "central planning". Change a few words and we have Hitler mobilizing for the Thousand Year Reich.

    The fact is, red baiting right wing paranoia aside, there's no way to mobilize a nation to deal with any major crisis without a certain amount of "massive central planning"; which, if a person has half a brain, they already know.


    Where to start? (none / 0) (#12)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    First, the speech and the $20 billion fund address only part of the problem. As Reich and, of all people, Rudy Giuliani, have both pointed out this past week, BP is still in charge of both "fixing" the problem and addressing the gushing oil, when BP has shown it is neither trustworthy nor competent.  Giuliani pointed out that if he were in charge -- and for all the issues I have with him, I think he's right here -- he'd identify the people with the greatest expertise in actually fixing the cause of the spill and getting rid of the oil, put them in charge -- under his command, and himself, as an executive, be barking orders daily based on what the true experts are saying. Speech and escrow fund aside, we are still relying on BP and accepting its evaluations and assurances about cleaning up 90% of the spill.  To me, taking charge and governance are what's needed, not more ivory tower illuminati and a commander in chief who does not seem comfortable governing.  The response to the crisis is still being privatized.

    The public knows that BP cannot be trusted, and hence the support for both the moratorium and more regulation of the industry.  Agree wholly with BTD about the need for doing something that works. And we need to do things that work to address all aspects of the spill, not just some.
    Early on in the speech, the President stated he believed what BP had told him and was outraged to find out the facts were different. So why allow BP's continuing control of the clean-up? And why reject the offers of other countries with demonstrated know-how?  How can we allow the economy of the region -- and an important part of our national food supply -- to be destroyed, when more effective solutions are available?  

    Is the President opposed to taking full charge because of a rejection of the notion that it is the government's job to do so, or something else?

    The government has (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 03:51:17 PM EST
    ZERO expertise in capping blown-out wells, and nobody has any expertise in cleaning up a continuing gusher of this magnitude.

    BP's own interests lie overwhelmingly in getting this thing stopped.  From everything I've read by people who actually know what they're talking about, BP (and Transocean and all their subcontractors and the folks from the other oil companies who are helping and the various scientific types who are consulting, etc.) have been taking the appropriate actions to contain and eventually stop the gusher.

    I can't think of anything more likely to produce a worse disaster than having some politician-- not Obama and CERTAINLY NOT Giuliani-- putting himself in charge of it and "barking orders."  Good. God.


    I think BP would love that (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    I think he's right here -- he'd identify the people with the greatest expertise in actually fixing the cause of the spill and getting rid of the oil, put them in charge -- under his command, and himself, as an executive, be barking orders daily based on what the true experts are saying.

    Certainly could not hold them liable for anything that happened after Rudy took charge and kicked them out.


    Given that it took Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    17 days to give permission to build the sand barriers....has let the Coast Guard idle the barrages that was sucking oil out of the water so they could check for life vests and fire extinguishers....refused to wave the Jones act so we could get additional expertise and equipment from other countries....

    I would say it is a wonderful thing that he isn't in charge....


    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 07:54:53 PM EST
    Louisiana is going to deeply, deeply regret building those sand barriers, but of course Jindal will be long gone by then.  Do you have a clue how ocean currents work?

    Secondly, I can just imagine the screaming and yelling if the Coast Guard had shrugged off the safety issues and then there was a fire and people were killed on those boats.

    Lastly, the Jones Act has zippo to do with any of this.  It applies to ships carrying goods between two U.S. ports.  It absolutely does not apply to skimmers, oil tankers, or any other vessel needed for this operation.  And in fact, there are a fair number of foreign-flagged ships out there as we speak.

    You really have to get in the habit of fact-checking the Limbaugh Line so you don't embarrass yourself so thoroughly.


    Well yes, yes I do. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    And if I believe you it took the EPA 17 days to give LA permission to do bad.

    Either you or the EPA is wrong.

    And have you ever considered the concept that the Coast Guard could have boarded the barrages while they were working and inspected.

    Multi-tasking. What a concept.

    As for the Jones act, provide some links to show that all those people are wrong.


    Look up the Jones Act (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 11:17:58 PM EST
    on Wikipedia or something.  Good grief.

    As you very well know, Louisiana was given the go-ahead for only a fraction of the artificial barrier islands they want to build, and that only grudgingly because of the politics.  These things are a terrible idea that will likely turn out to do more long-term damage to Lousiana's, and neighboring states', coastlines than the oil.


    Why Wiki?? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    The Jones Act prevents foreign-owned or -operated or -crewed vessels from transporting goods or passengers between two U.S. ports. For such purposes, the Act requires that the vessel must be:
    built in the U.S.
    flagged as a U.S. vessel, and
    owned and operated by U.S. citizen(s)
    In addition, at least three-quarter of the crew must be U.S. citizens

    It is not difficult, at least for me, to see that this prevents foreign vessels from particapting in the clean up.



    Yes, the EPA made the wrong decision (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    on the sand barriers, and it took a couple of weeks to do it. They took the path of least resistance right now, possible short term gain of stopping the oil vs. almost certain long term harm to the wetlands.

    Yes (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    The EPA pathetic during 9/11. I think it must be because they are a political organization aka a government agency.

    Cream City Uninformed? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    The pointed criticism of Mrs. Whitman came in a ruling by the judge, Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court in Manhattan, in a 2004 class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and schoolchildren from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to air contamination inside buildings near the trade center.

    The suit, against Mrs. Whitman, other former and current E.P.A. officials and the agency itself, charges that they failed to warn people of dangerous materials in the air and then failed to carry out an adequate cleanup. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and want the judge to order a thorough cleaning....

    "The allegations in this case of Whitman's reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking," Judge Batts said.


    The EPA failed miserably during 9/11. Perhaps you need to do some research.


    Just weary of tinfoil in a microwave (4.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    which is how your mind works here, always arcing away from useful discussion.

    Focus.  For once, just focus.  Contribute to the site as it requests: for conversation and dialogue, not for dominance.


    Tin Foil Microwave? (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    The failure of the EPA during WTC cleanup operation is well documented. Not to mention that I got a front row seat, and am well aware of the politics that went on during the disaster.

    And yes Obama has cleaned up the EPA, yet the sand berm idea is not only untested but a cave to Jindal's political pressure. The expensive project is almost certainly going to make Jindal, the EPA and Obama look bad, imo.

    As far as the rest of your crap, you are full of it as usual.


    Ah, your last sentence (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:52:55 AM EST
    is so the essence of Eau de Squeaky.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:22:49 AM EST
    Personal insults, seem to be your forte, aka crap.

    Next, stay tuned ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:59:25 AM EST
    Personal insults, seem to be your forte, aka crap.

    ... as Michelle Malkin lectures others on the need for civility in public discourse.


    Mirror? (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    At least the far greater percentage of my comments are factual content, yours are almost all insults, and no content.

    You are bringing down your own batting (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    average here.

    How So? (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:42:14 PM EST
    I am stating a fact, and if it is so meaningful to you I can do a percentage count. My estimate would be that 5% of my comments have contained a personal attack, while 85% for yman.

    I do have a loooong record here, and am not even suggesting that I am a saint, like you (lol), but the content of yman's comments here seems to be extremely thin.

    I really would not be surprised if s/he was previously banned, or has/had another screen name.  


    Don't bother. Plus this is a rather (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    old thread, apparently unmonitored.

    Apparently Unmonitored (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    Well you seem to like to play the monitor, I am sure that TL would love to hear your complaints.

    Do yourself a favor, maybe you can "sanitize" the thread to your liking.


    Excellent idea. Why didn't I think of that? (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    You Have Thought Of It (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    All you have to do is put your mind to it and maybe you can get me banned, limited as a chatterer, or whatever else you have in mind.

    But then again you have stated that TL is unfair and does not play by her own rules. Well, I have not seen that. And, as she has stated many times, she does not read all the comments, but if any comments or threads are in violation of TL policy she will delete offending comments, warn the offending commenters, and take further action if necessary.

    I have been here a long time, and have seen nothing but fairness by our host. But obviously you do not agree. My point is that your opinion may be a result of your lack of initiative to police the threads.


    I'm not really suited for the role of snitch. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    Then, I would suggest that you stop complaining that Jeralyn is unfair, behind her back, so to speak.

    I don't think she is unfair. Different (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:24:20 PM EST

    Really? (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    Well you have complained that she is unfair, in black and white, and not just once.

    But why not have moveable goalposts on this one, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

    Besides, your reframing seems also shaky, athought vague enough to mean anything. But if I read your new opinion that she has a "different perspective", in the context of allowing some commenters more leeway than others, why don't you test your unfounded theory?

    Again, she has clearly stated many, many times, that she does not read all the comments, and would like to be alerted to comments that violate the comment policy.

    Complaining about TL, which you have done countless times, yet not pointing it out to her, seems like a cheap shot, imo. I believe that your allegations are untrue, as I have stated above.

    And, you come from a prosecutorial POV, which is 180 degrees different than TL, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about personal insults, and other violations of the site policy.


    The bottom line: it's not my blog. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    Non Sequitur (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    Not my blog either, so what. And I get it, your way is passive. Complaint, get you friends, I guess. And, clearly you are a valued commenter by all here, including me. I will stop trying to get blood out of a stone.

    Tooooooo funny (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    My estimate would be that 5% of my comments have contained a personal attack, while 85% for yman.

    Yeah .... and Rush Limbaugh "estimates" he's factually accurate 99% of the time.  That always cracks me up, too.

    At least the far greater percentage of my comments are factual content

    Sure, if by "factual content" you mean speculation, fantasy, innuendo and "reinterpretation" of the thoughts and motives of others.

    And, of course, that's not even counting the accusations and attacks phrased as "questions", or "I would not be surprised if ..."

    Exhibit 9,323

    ... but the content of yman's comments here seems to be extremely thin.

    I really would not be surprised if s/he was previously banned, or has/had another screen name.

    Listen (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    When you go through the tens of thousand comments I have made here at TL in the last 6 or 7 years, get back to me with the percentages.

    I have seen all your comments, at least under the name yman, and they do seem pretty thin, mostly attacks.


    Really? Is that what ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    ... you think?


    No, thanks.

    I have seen all your comments, at least under the name yman

    1.  one more lame attempt at an attack, suggesting (once again, falsely) that I was banned after using another (imaginary) screen name.  As usual, another Squeaky, fictional fairytale.

    2.  ... you've seen all of my comments?  wow.

    probably time to look in to one of those "hobby" thingies...

    3)  Your pride in your "tens of thousands of comments here at TL" is self-evident, ...

    ... and seriously funny.

    Which brings us full-circle to my hobby suggestion....


    No Pride (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:26:10 PM EST
    Just math. And as for hobbies, got plenty, including blogging.

    What's your excuse? Or, is someone paying you to comment here.

    And I have no idea whether or not you have posted here under a different name. But it does seem to happen more than not, with some.


    No pride?!? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    Yeah .... right.  The number of times you've mentioned how long you've commented at TL is only exceeded by your complaints about the newcomer "refugees".  Deny it if you want, but it's seriously funny.

    BTW - Suddenly you now claim you have "no idea" whether I've posted under a different name?  Wow ... not what you were just suggesting, nor what you previously suggested when you claimed I had the same syntax, etc. as some other imaginary, unnamed poster.  Oh well, ... guess you were just imagining ...

    ... again.

    BBTW - What about me?

    Get back to me after I start talking about the "tens of thousands" of comments.



    9/11 is not the subject (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    And your comparison is like saying all doctors are wrong because one made a mistake.

    I'm just looking for some information on why constructing the sand barriers is "bad."

    Can you provide that?


    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    Mistake??? Sorry but there was no mistake. Unless you consider Whitman lying to be a mistake, this was not a case where the EPA made mistake. The knowingly lied to the public and the workers in and around the WTC site.

    Mrs. Whitman knew that the towers' destruction had released huge amounts of hazardous emissions, Judge Batts found. But as early as Sept. 13, Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site.

    This is not about 9/11 (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    The claim that the EPA is wrong in this case has nothing to do with the 9/11 thing, even if was wrong then.

    My questions remains. Why is the EPA wrong to let LA construct the sand barriers?


    This Is About You Again? (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    Who are you to decide what this is about? The thread starts off with Giuliani, and delves into the EPA. Just because you want to defend Jindal's use of sandbags, in order to make Obama look bad, doesn't mean that that is any more the topic of the thread than the failed response of Giuliani and the EPA during 9/11.


    Giuliani pointed out that if he were in charge -- and for all the issues I have with him, I think he's right here -- he'd identify the people with the greatest expertise in actually fixing the cause of the spill and getting rid of the oil, put them in charge

    Of course if you believe what Giuliani says about his own leadership during 9/11, you will believe most GOP spin.


    The conversation has been about the spill (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    and the lack of fixes and the use of gasoline. Obama's lack of response is part of that. The EPA's delay in approving the sand barriers has been part of that.

    I noted the delay. It was claimed that the EPA was wrong to let the barriers be built.

    I'm just looking for some information showing some proof that the EPA was wrong.

    Evidently you can't provide that.


    Very Expensive Political Band-Aid (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    Indeed, since the Louisiana berm will not be continuous, there is a strong likelihood that oil will flow in through the gaps, then possibly become trapped in wetlands.

    In addition to its questionable prospects for success, the Louisiana berm project would be extremely expensive. The application from the state of Louisiana estimated the cost to be about $3.8 million per mile, or about $171 million for the initial 45 miles of the permitted project.....the Interior Department suggests the costs are likely to be closer to $500 million....

    The EPA directly questioned the proposed berm's effectiveness, suggesting there is no evidence that the project will stop oil from entering the marshes and estuaries because it is constructed only in front of the barrier islands and will not block the inlets and deepwater passes. In addition, EPA questioned whether a project that will take at least 6 to 9 months to build would be completed in time to have any impact on the spill.

    As a coastal geologist who studies coastal storm impacts, it is clear to me that this berm, located just offshore of the barrier islands, will also be extremely susceptible to erosion. Indeed, it will begin to erode immediately upon completion. Even a simple understanding of coastal processes leads one to conclude that this sandy berm could disappear within a few months.



    So you have an (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    opinion that it shouldn't be done.

    Okay. So noted.

    It may even be right. It may even be wrong.


    And your proof is?? (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    Really, I keep reading this but I don't see any facts.

    It could have something (none / 0) (#69)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 12:20:47 PM EST
    to do with the fact that the government has literally zero experience with Deepwater Oil Drilling.

    Reply to Several (none / 0) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 08:04:17 PM EST
    My post has been read all too literally.  In short, the government should take charge of getting things done, not leave the doing to the culprit that has shown itself wholly ineffective and to some extent, dilatory and not too willing, to address the problems with due speed and resources.

    There are others with knowledge of how to clean up massive oil spillage.  See Esquire articles Link
    and this article indicating the U.S. Government finally accepting offers of certain equipment, etc. from other nations with experience fighting oil spills months after offers first extended. Please read through the article, as a read of first para. or two does not tell the complete story.  The Norwegian have lots of experience, as do others.  Link

    There is also this article at a Foreign Policy blog:  Link  


    Economic Policies (none / 0) (#74)
    by dkmich on Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    They would have to reach really hard to hit mediocre.  They are half-assed or corporate at best in my book.