Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I'm still in hearing mode.

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Artur Davis Loses in Ala. Gov. Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    U.N. Investigator... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    calls for an end to our brand of terrorism...no more CIA Killer Drones, no more Playstation War.

    I second that!

    how long (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    till someone figures out how to hijack one of those things?  The iraqis already got into the camera drones.

    You would think they'd be wary for that reason alone.

    Not to mention the fact that having flying killer robots is just... creepy and entirely disturbing on a moral level.


    I've got my David-Brand... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:11:33 AM EST
    slingshot at the ready for when they are deployed domestically:) Creepy is right.

    Probably too late to sound the alarm in regards to Playstation-Mentality War...we're there and we ain't going back.  


    They aren't sending the toy for you (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    anymore kdog :)  If they come for us now with the spooky big ship, we are done.  If we run we'll just die tired.

    And it isn't a CIA thing either (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    when they go into Sudan or Yemen and take out an Al Qaeda target, it is a JSOC type thing (even though JSOC technically doesn't deploy...they claim to only train).  When you talk JSOC type situations though these days you are talking about everyone onboard with lawyers in the room, the FBI, the CIA, special forces of probably every branch of the military.  They can't lay this stuff at the feet of the CIA at this time cuz it just ain't so.

    We don't kill by drone anymore (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    I don't know what this person is talking about.  He or she is still stuck in the Bush years.  A few do have weapons on them still (not sure why, they probably still want the option if they saw for one brief moment a very tall dude dragging a dialysis machine behind him through the sand).  We still use drones though for surveillance, once they have found a specific target though it is a Spectre Gunship that goes in, and a crew of 8 or 9 people transmitting to command on the ground made up of a room full of people as well watching on video feeds, is what does the bad stuff now.  They have already hacked into our drones once, using some software that was online for free if I remember that hubbub right :)

    We kill by drone more than ever... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    according to the NY Times.  Link

    Under President Obama, the C.I.A. has steadily increased the number of missile attacks against targets in Pakistan's tribal areas by remotely piloted Predator and Reaper drones. As of May 28, the C.I.A. had carried out 38 strikes this year, compared with 53 for all of 2009, according to The Long War Journal, a Web site that tracks the number of strikes.

    The use of the gunships (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    isn't talked about much.  They are more of an area 51 item.  When I read things like this, I chalk it up to not being very well informed or fact checking.  Just knowing that drones were involved in the strike means that the strike was from drones.  Hey, I thought we were making a ton of drone strikes too until my husband went over.  Just because you can't see what is firing on you and you didn't know it was there doesn't mean it is a drone.  The new Spectre Gunships are the new spooks in the sky.  They don't call them Ghost Riders or the Angel of Death for nuthin, I think they've earned both nicknames.  

    Any airplane carrying (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    a 105 howitzer....

    Not so (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    I'm referring specifically to Spectre and Spooky versions.

    Um, Spectre and Spooky do (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    carry a 105 mm howitzer, which they use for direct fire attacks on targets.

    Smart people don't mess with 'em.  They don't miss.


    They do right now (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 08:10:08 AM EST
    but my spouse says they will be getting rid of it, they want it replaced with a different weapon system.  The SOCUM version of Spooky is what is usually taking on Al Qaeda targets and there are weapons system differences.  Likely some things are classified. They are the most sophisticated "battle" platform that we have.  They are also pressurized so they can fly at 30,000 feet as well.  They have an unbelieveable amount of the most sophisticated radar, radar jamming equipment, and a slew of off the charts surveillance capabilities that change and upgraded regularly.  It has night vision and thermal vision, they can see warm bodies moving around in complete blackout darkness and the people they are watching have no clue they are there because they are so far away when they do it.

    Sorry" SOCOM" version (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 08:11:23 AM EST
    Here's a link to (none / 0) (#192)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    explain better.  It isn't in my opinion a good idea at this time to define any piece of military equipment based on one specificality in today's military.  Things change rapidly.  Classified things change even faster.  For a long time when my husband flew Cobras I heard blah blah blah, Cobra gunships are single engine, Cobra gunships are single engine.  They had been so since Vietnam, and it was almost a point of God must love me pride if you survived a combat career in one because single engine helicopters are very vulnerable in a war zone.  Then the Army did away with them, sent them to the National Guard and only went with Apache gunships.  Then my spouse was going some of his photographs from Iraq and I saw a Cobra flying in one of them.  I gasped out, "My God, they sent the National Guard with single engine Cobras?".  I mean we had sent soldiers in with broken body armor, so why not?  But nope, it was a Whiskey Cobra....the Marines had converted the Cobra to twin engines....but only the Marines had.  The Apache has gone through three MAJOR changes in the past seven years.  One gutting that sent EVERYONE back to school for it.  The Apache under goes constant minor upgrades and changes as does every airframe we have right now.

    Part of it has to do with (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    what it looks like when it deploys it flares in self defense (an angel), and how silently and unseen they strike.

    Man to man is so unjust Tracy... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    you don't know who to trust or who to believe...Mr. MT's observations have more credibility than the Times...but the Times has more than the CIA and the rest of the complex, which has less than zero.

    I was talking to my husband about (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    this cuz....well, I couldn't believe it but they did a mission on Joshua's bday this year.  During the mission they flew a flag and dedicated it to Joshua and spouse brought it home and gave it to him.  I was like....WTF is this cuz it comes with a certificate too and it didn't sound real good.  Upon hearing more, it wasn't good.  I don't know what the mission was that day.  That is classified probably forever, but I did sternly word my questioning to my husband about gifting someone for their bday an American flag and the certified likelihood that people were killed.  My husband had not thought of it that way.  He was there day in and day out working very long days and he longed for us to understand what he was going through and doing.  I asked him why more people were not aware of the spectre and spooky and the roles they play right now.  That part he didn't understand either because it isn't classified that they are there working.  But it does seem like almost everything they do right now is classified so perhaps that is the knot in the information highway.

    interesting (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    it makes sense.  At least in the sense that they are taking the hijacking seriously.

    I mean, that just seemed like a disaster-in-the-making.


    I don't know much about the (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 08:49:34 AM EST
    highjacking other than a lot of people wondered WTF we were doing and how we could be doing it so badly?  My cousin is actually an evil contractor.  He is a geek but works for the Air Force right now at Schriever doing computer interface stuff, stuff I have no grasp of.  It is a constant battle everyday though he says to deal with hacking.  The best in the field get paid very well to go do what they do in the war zone.  He is actually my cousin-in-law, and my cousin forbids him to even think about getting involved in the fight with blood in it.  My spouse says though that the person you must live with in that capacity and position in the war zone now, can make you or break you as much as anyone else you are over there with.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#34)
    by Matt v on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    they should be called Herlequins.

    Herlequin: a mythical figure who led a band of demons across the sky on ghostly horses, terrifying peasants with their attacks in the dead of night -  the threat of which was used by nobility in feudal times to control the populace.


    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    US and Pakistani security officials believe that Mr. Yazid, along with members of his family, was recently killed by an American drone attack in Pakistan's tribal areas. Yazid's death is being claimed as a counterterrorism victory, but analysts said that Al Qaeda is quick to appoint successors to key posts.



    Would you rather the killing be done (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    in person?

    Perhaps that appeals to the "Gunfight in the street" mentality we have, but what it also means that more of us will be killed.

    Have you considered the risk you, and the worthless UN, ask some of us to bear?


    Yes sir... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    in person, preferably with bare hands.

    Seems to me the more technological the slaughter, the less pause in using the technology to slaughter.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    The leaders, not the poorest class, should be the ones who do the fighting.

    Just as a thought experiment, suppose (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by observed on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    membership in Congress were restricted to people who had children currently serving as combat troops. You think we'd fight as many wars?

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    Can't find how many have children who served or are currently serving (the only two that come to mind off the top of my head is John McCain and Jim Webb). Does anybody have any numbers?

    Currently, 121 members of Congress HAVE served in the military.


    Biden's son Beau (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 08:26:44 PM EST
    served`in Afghanistan.

    GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter's son (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    served in Iraq and then succeeded his dad in the House of Representatives.

    But you and I and all of us know (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    it doesn't work that way.

    Think of the thousands of US troops and Vietnamese killed because we didn't use all we had.

    Who asks them if they had rather died than use drones??


    you are not at all worried (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    about the security/technology loopholes?

    I mean, they already got into the camera system.  How long till they get into the controller?

    Honestly with the long range missle capabilities we have and the other types of gunships I just think it's a completely uneccessary risk to have unmanned killing machines flying around.


    What makes the drones so neat (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    is their small size and quiet operation..

    Security problems?

    Nope, no concern here.


    All we had (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    meaning what? What didn't we use in Vietnam besides nukes?

    We didn't (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:04:56 PM EST
    wipe out Hanoi and we didn't close the trail...

    The discussion (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:21:55 PM EST
    centered on specific technology, not strategy..

    You think we should've used nuclear weapons? Why not just come out and say it? It's not like people aren't aware already that you're slightly unhinged..


    The discussion was centered on things the military (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:40:33 AM EST
    should or should not do.

    Always the reframer, eh?



    about Gen. Custer and Little Bighorn.

    According to the segment the Lakota won the battle because they had more technologically advanced weapons than Custer's army; they repeating rifles while the army guys had single-shot weapons.

    Technology matters.


    Sure does matter... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    when you're out to kill, the better your technology the higher the enemy body-count.

    If you wanna keep the body count down in a conflict...hand to hand is the way to go.  Busting a face open with your fist kinda turns you off in a way playing with a joystick in front of a screen does not.

    It's why I abhor guns...makes it too easy to take a life.  If I'm gonna kill somebody I'm using a bat...so I have more chance to change my mind.


    You just can't win, can you. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    You bring a knuckle sandwich, the other guy brings a bat. You bring a bat, the other guy brings a spear. You bring a AK47 the other guy brings a Spectre Gunship...

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    I'm pipe-dreaming (as usual)...making killing clean and easy is just part of the package I guess...when technology evolves faster than the human soul.

    I look at it as a "least you can do" type of thing...if you're gonna kill, the least you can do is get your hands dirty...I don't think the guy who pushes the red button feels it like the guy who sticks a knife in ya...and it would be nice if a killer was forced to feel it, I think we'd see less killing.


    Probably so. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    otoh... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    some don't seem to have much pause during an old-fashioned stoning or beheading in certain parts of the world...it don't get much dirtier than that.  

    Maybe it's a permanent stain no matter what method is used...depressing thought that.


    Technology: (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:14:32 PM EST
    the English long bow is usually one of classic examples given..

    Also, didn't the Indians have something like a three or four to one numbers advantage, in a battle fought on open ground, at Little Bighorn? Not exactly optimal conditions for success in battle, no matter what technological advantages you might enjoy.


    He said the Lakota had the better technology, and that that was the deciding factor. Said this was a new discovery. Who am I to question?

    hear, hear (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    And how did it go at the convention?

    When breakin' the law is gorgeous... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    more of this please....from sheen to shining sheen.

    It is likely that the guy(s) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    who defaced the BP sign will wind up with more jail time than BP CEO Tony (I want my life back, what oil plume)Hayward.

    And that KeysDan... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    just says it all...excellent spot-on observation.

    Good One (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    And nice title: Junk Shot

    Priceless (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    And Rudy Thuggiani wanted us to believe (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    great graffiti art was dead and he'd killed it.

    Some good news (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    The Rachel Corrie has left from Ireland and is heading to Gaza in spite of Israel's latest murderous rampage:

    The vessel left Ireland carrying 550 tons of cement, educational materials, toys and medical equipment - the latest effort by peace activists to deliver food and break Israel's blockade of Gaza.


    I especially love the fact that it's named Rachel Corrie, a name that makes most Israeli and neocon heads explode.

    This incident is going to truly test our "special relationship" with Israel and with the rest of the world. Turkey and Ireland have vowed that if Israel kills any of its citizens it will face "serious consequences." Unlike the U.S., where we do squat-all when Israel murders U.S. citizen and where, as per usual, the members of both parties outdid themselves in obsequiousness to our little psychopathic child in the Mideast:

    American lawmakers in both parties today expressed support for Israel in the wake of growing international condemnation of the country following its deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip.


    But of course! Hey, we've looked the other way since the Liberty bombing, why would we stop now? Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is fed up with having Israel and with our support of it, and we're not big enough to bully them around like we used to.

    The Prime Minister of Turkey called for an emergency NATO meeting. We are bound by NATO treaty obligations to respond in force to any attack on members' ships in international waters. What will we do now--withdraw from NATO to make Israel happy?

    This will be very interesting to watch develop.

    Did some reading up on the blockade. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    Israel isn't allowing cement into Gaza. Israel isn't even allowing tin cans.

    Fishermen have to stay within 3 miles of the coast, even though the closest shoals where there are abudant fish are 9 miles out.
    according to Israel  Hamas uses the cement to build bunkers and melts down the tin to make weapons.

    I am reporting here, not suggesting I support these policies.


    Do you have a Link? (none / 0) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    Hamas uses the cement to build bunkers and melts down the tin to make weapons. I am reporting here, not suggesting I support these policies.

    I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    you are missing a key part of that statement.  Jeff is not saying they do that necessarily.  Just that "according to Israel" they do that.  Which is a very key qualifier, IMO.

    Yes, I understood the context... (none / 0) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    Was just wondering what newspaper printed those allegations about how the cement is being used -- who, specifically, said it; was it somebody in the Israeli government or the IDF. Those sources need to be asked why food and medicine is also being kept out of Gaza. Would they claim that Hamas is also using those things for nefarious purposes. Etc.

    wikipedia. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    gaza blockade. I'm not good at links, but I read some of it there.

    Easy Link Method (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    1. Start with a bracket: [

    2. Add the word: link,  or whatever text you want to appear in your comment

    3. Add the URL: http://www.blablabla.bla

    4. Add a closing bracket: ]

    Best link method ever. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:03:48 PM EST
    ty squeaky. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    I can't find them now, there was one LA Times article and one Guardian article about the blockade... as far as their sources, I don't remember.

    Ovens anyone? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is fed up with having Israel and with our support of it, and we're not big enough to bully them around like we used to.

    Yes, Israelis such a threat to Germany and Syria and Iran and Jordan and.........I mean there are just billions and billions of them.

    I think we have heard that song before.... say in the mid '30's?????


    That was back when (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    the American right wing was pretty much cheering the Nazis on, as I recall..

    These days, they think Jesus is going to have one big oven for non-believers during,(or is it after?), The Rapture, so their anti-semitism only takes theological form now.  


    That was back when the Repubs (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    were isolationists and the Demos internationalists....... Now the two have switched.

    "el excremento del diablo" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    a sentiment attributed to the Venezulean Minister of Minerals, Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo (1903-1979).   And, the devil is in the oil moratorium's fine print. Today, June 2,  Interior Department's MMS granted a drilling permit sought by Bandon Oil and Gas for drilling at a site 50 miles off the Louisiana coastline; President Obama quietly lifted a brief ban last week on drilling in shallow water (Bandon's permit is for a depth of 115 ft of water). Bandon Oil first sought the permit in April, after the BP blow. The moratorium now applies to drilling in deep water.  

    Oh, brother... (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    I guess we're just living and breathing the fine print now, shortly to get into discussions about what the real meaning of "is" is.  

    Here's a big clue for Obama: if you have to rely on the fine print rationale, you aren't being honest, and you certainly aren't being transparent.  Oh, but I'm sure the Parser-in-Chief has an answer for that, too.  Something along the lines of, "we didn't hide it, so how can that not be transparent?"

    Beware the photo op.  And the optics of an Eric Holder making portentous announcements.  And Obama being "angry;" distractions all, and a sure sign that something any sentient being would be opposed to has just been put into place.

    That's how he rolls.

    Two and a half more years of this; oh, joy.


    Eric Holder scared BP (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    and the oil industry yesterday as reflected by the stock market.  As the fine print of the scope of Holder's look see is revealed, my guess is the boys will feel better.  Already, the stock market is off the fainting couch.  If really serious, the EPA should indicate that they are reviewing the situation for a possible finding of "Discretionary Disbarment", banning BP from bidding for oil/gas leases on federally controlled lands or offshore parcels or banning BP from renewing thousands of existing leases.  Now, that is leverage.

    No Doubt You Are Correct (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    Some investors see this as a rare buying opportunity. Others said the stocks could underperform for years despite reduced valuations. They warned the uncertain outcome of the oil spill and risk to profits means investors should expect a bumpy ride in coming months.

    BP has seen its shares fall 36 percent since April when the spill began. The company, now facing an Obama administration criminal investigation, has lost one-third of its market value or about $67 billion (46 billion pounds) since the April 20 explosion that killed 11.

    "We are seeing some hedge funds have started building stakes. Political risk is driving the stock price down and makes it highly speculative. It could be value or could be a major break-up," a Zurich-based trader said.

    The company carries a one-year forward price-to-earnings (P/E) of 5.74, the lowest among the oil majors.


    Particularly a good chance that BP will be fine in the end is that they have a lot of hungry customers to satisfy:

    U.S. Petroleum Consumption   
    19,498,000 barrels/day
    U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption   
    8,989,000 barrels/day (378 million gallons/day)
    Share of US Oil Consumption for Transportation   


    Seems to me no one wants to pay more for gas, and most of us are fine with the status quo.


    Listing (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    Upon conviction of a felony, as I recall, the company is listed (no contracts with federal government, e.g.) That is also leverage.

    And, what would you like then? (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    Pretty clear (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    that Anne and a lot of us would like honesty instead of two-faced statements.  You prefer yet another president saying one thing and doing another?

    I think she is referencing (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    this statement

    Two and a half more years of this; oh, joy.

    I would prefer 6 and a half.


    Honesty? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    Well that would be nice to try for once, instead of your propaganda, or is it just inattentiveness?

    WASHINGTON -- President Obama said on Thursday that he is extending the moratorium on permits to drill new deepwater wells for six more months, as the head of the agency that oversees offshore drilling resigned under pressure.

    The well that keysdan mentioned is a shallow water well. The ban for shallow drilling, set in the wake of the Deepwater disaster was for 30 days.

    In response to the BP spill, the Obama administration placed a ban on new oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The 30 day ban gives the Interior Department until May 28th to conduct a safety review of the industry. With 30% of our oil and gas production coming out of the Gulf, existing drilling continues.

    Some in the industry think the ban was not well thought out. Companies that drill in the shallow water came to Washington this week to explain how their operations are different. The International Association of Drilling Contractors says the ban unfairly threatens shallow water production; mostly of natural gas.


    You may be against all oil drilling in US, which is an entirely different subject,  but to call Obama dishonest here is dishonest. Cheap shots seem to be your forte.


    Thirty whole days, huh? Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    So, where's the safety review - anyone seen it?  Got a link to it?

    And how come the resignation of the head of the agency didn't cause Obama to extend the shallow water drilling ban?

    Also, can you find for me anywhere where I have said I am opposed to ALL drilling in the US?

    You know as well as I do that the iffy, not-sure-the-public-will-like-this stuff gets done "quietly," in the hope that no one will notice.  If this were all so on the up-and-up, why the "quiet?"  Why not a big announcement about the results of the 30-day safety review?

    Jesus, it probably took them 30 days to find the freaking rubber stamp that said "Drill, Baby, Drill."

    Give me a break.


    Yes Thirty Days (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    You are not the only interested party, when it comes to producing and using oil. As long as it doesn't ruin your view, is that where you draw the line?
    Also, can you find for me anywhere where I have said I am opposed to ALL drilling in the US?

    No, but can you find for me anywhere where I said that you were opposed to ALL drilling in the US?


    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    "You may be against all oil drilling in US..."

    squeaky, comment #82.

    My "view" happens to be one that questions how an adequate safety review of shallow water drilling can be done in 30 days, and wonders how the departure of the head of MMS requires that there be a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, but that same rationale does not extend to shallow water drilling.

    My "view" questions the quiet resumption of permitting for shallow water wells, with no mention of this so-called safety review.

    I know the US and the rest of the world are using unimaginably enormous amounts of oil, and that our demand is harming the environment.  Cars and trucks and what-not are not the only users of petroleum products, you know.  Give up oil, we give up pretty much everything that runs on it, or is a by-product of the machinery that manufactures pretty much everything.

    There are solutions, but the government seems unwilling to commit to them - in much the same way it was unwilling to commit to really solving the health care crisis, or the financial crisis.  

    But beating people with the "are you ready to give up oil - didn't think so" stick, as a way to dismiss their opinions about this situation we are in, makes about as much sense as telling people that if they weren't willing to give up going to the doctor, or give up having a bank account, that nothing they had to say on the subject of health care or finance was worth considering.


    Wow (3.00 / 2) (#172)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    According to you

    "You may be against all oil drilling in US..."

    Is that same as saying You are against all oil drilling in the US.

    You may want to crack open one of your english grammar books, and to help you I added bolding in order to help you figure out your mistake.


    Nice try - not buying what you're selling. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 07:18:02 AM EST
    While it is actually possible you weren't trying to make an assumption about me, your history of doing so time and time and time again means you don't get the benefit of the doubt.  It's why I called you out for what you said; someone interested in honest discussion, who cared that what he was saying might have been misconstrued, would have responded by saying some version of, "I'm sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were against all drilling - I don't know if you are," but instead, you get petulant.

    No, I'm not telling you what to write - I'm just telling you that as long as you continue to put words in my mouth, as you routinely do because it is the only way you seem to know how to construct the arguments you want to have, you will not be getting the benefit of the doubt from me.  


    Wow (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    Opting for outright dishonesty. Not surprised.

    Check this out (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    It's an interactive map that lets you visualize the reach of the oil spill if was centered over your house.

    Scary stuff.


    Your forte, of course (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    is such a hoot!

    May as well face it you're addicted to OIL. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    It appears there's a new meme in town.

    We can all sing along to the tune of: "May as well face it you're addicted to love". Oh yeah...may as well face it, etc.


    No, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    I don't prefer any dissembling. At some point--maybe now it too early--the issue will become "If not this person, what person?" How can I say what we all know without leading into "That's the way its always been" "We won't fall for that emotional blackmail" etc. Look--I may agree on lots of levels that a political and governmental and all-around situation could and should always be better. But, this is a place for dialogue. It is fair to ask about real person alternatives. It is fair unless there is an unspoken silence code.

    I followed that fairly well (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:44:53 PM EST
    until your last sentence.  Its meaning simply stumps me.

    So -- no matter.  Some see our political system as limiting, and not surprisingly, they will find themselves limited. . . .


    Clarification, CC (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:35:33 PM EST
    To answer your suggested query: The meaning of my last sentence may have more to do with me than you. That is, it is expression of my "feeling" that it may not be somehow not "politically correct" to talk here about what will be coming in November--"choose x or y or don't choose. Further, in that vein: It appears that to talk about that type of inevitable electoral choice (at this point) invites a kind of intellectual wrath of the "how dare you repeat the same old extortion thing" reality. Obviously, the quotes surround my thought in the former sentence. And, if we are to keep silence in talking about it, I will.

    I hope this isn't the usual segue (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    to "the other guys are worse," or how we all have to be patient and understand the bigger picture and the balancing of interests, and incremental change and all that other crap, because I am just not having it.

    I'm pretty much sick of this saying-one-thing, doing-the-complete-opposite schtick, and then Obama not even having the balls to take responsibility for it.

    Oh, he's happy to take the stage and announce the end of drilling permits for some period of time - yeah, make the people think you're on their side -just like he's done with pretty much every other major issue: health care, finance, TARP, FISA, indefinite detention, state secrets, executive orders.  And looming on the horizon - Social Security and Medicare.

    As far as the "other guys" are concerned, it's just Same Sh!t, Different Party - one homogenous blend of stinking doo-doo.

    And that's just not good enough.


    The Other Guys (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    or how we all have to be patient and understand the bigger picture and the balancing of interests, and incremental change and all that other crap, because I am just not having it.

    So are you committing to stopping using gasoline and oil products?

    No, thought so. But it sure is fun bashing the other guy...lol


    That's a little unfair (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    So are you committing to stopping using gasoline and oil products?

    No, thought so. But it sure is fun bashing the other guy...lol

    And I'm not sure it is such a laughing blast you seem to think it is.

    To transition off oil is very much a collective effort. Yes, it is individual too, but to cry individual responsibility does not mean that any oil extraction corporation or government or political party should not be held accountable. You seem to be using individual efforts to limit oil use as a way to defend Obama and BP, or to discredit anyone you disagree with.


    Unfair? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    Anne, is just not having it. Sounds like a tantrum, screaming in her car?

    Many here rightly think this spill is horrific, yet no one seems to take any responsibility for being a supporter of big oil. Nor do many seem to care much about this as business as usual around the globe, Nigeria delta, is a horror show.

    This is a wake up call as to our dependence on oil. Yet many here have made it about Obama, their favorite whipping boy. Greed and corporate profits over human safety is nothing new, and neither is our own collusion by supporting them as consumers.

    Would another leader make us feel better about consuming 387 million gallons a day of gasoline? Hope not.


    You seem to think this is somehow (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    about Obama, personally.

    Frankly, I think many here probably do what they can within the system to ease off oil. There have been many wake up calls - have they worked for you? What are you doing?

    Less oil use will have to come down to money and many will suffer.

    In the mean time your deep loyalty to a US President who's deep loyalty to a foreign oil corporation is not that inspiring.

    Would another leader make us feel better about consuming 387 million gallons a day of gasoline? Hope not.

    The Obama administration is doing a fine job of this. And you know that gasoline is a portion of petro products. And even for gasoline use, you may not have a car, but you sure depend on lots and lots and lots of cars - to get fertilized foods to your grocery store and favorite restaurants for one minor example.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    Are you reading the comments at TL? I do not think that this is about Obama, I think that this is about an unprecedented catastrophe which highlights Americas resistance to getting off oil.

    Congress is doing nothing, because we are complacent having cheap gas and oil prices, and an inflated standard of living without any reflection about what that means in the world.

    Many here have made this into another Obama failure. Pretty much echoing Palin and her right wing chorus. For many the opportunity here, is not reflection about our addiction to oil, but a political opportunity to once again show that Obama is a terrible leader.


    I'm sorry but this IS (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:52:39 PM EST
    quickly becoming an Obama administration failure. He IS the President and our leader during a crisis. Congress has its faults (!) but it does not address disasters in real time like the President, administration and military does.

    Yes (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    Exactly what the right wing is positioning this as, interesting that some here are aligned with the right regarding trying to make this Obama's fault.

    Getting mired in political maneuvering is rather shameful, imo. But so be it, you have your agenda.


    BP and the related companies are (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:18:22 PM EST
    the ones responsible for the oil spill, but Obama owns the aftermath: the marshalling of resources to manage the environmental impact, the investigation into the root causes of the spill, devising contingency plans to address the economic repercussions to the communities affected, and so on.

    George Bush didn't cause the hurricane that devastated the Gulf states, but he sure as hell was responsible for how the aftermath was handled; whatever blame he got was not because he was a Republican, but because he and his administration did an abominable job of handling almost every aspect of the disaster.

    Sure, the right is making hay while the sun shines, but they wouldn't be able to do that with any level of credibility if Obama weren't providing them with that opportunity.

    Obama's inability to get out of his comfort zone as the professorial dispassionate observer is not serving him well, and that can't be blamed on rght-wing framing or political maneuvering.

    He owns this whether you want to acknowledge that or not; that's what he signed on for, it's what he, himself, keeps saying, so...it's up to him.


    Interesting (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    What do Anne, Karl Rove, David Frum and the National review have in common? They are calling the BP oil spill Obama's Katerina.

    reply to # 155 (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:15:37 AM EST
    But so be it, you have your agenda.

    Fine, so you say. You seem to have the stomach for this, but I don't. You do seem to have some sort of agenda and then accuse me of some agenda which I don't even know what you are talking about. You are super into politics and that's cool dude. I'm just in a place that is sad about what is being lost.

    I don't even read any of jimakappwhatever's comments. Just scroll past them. The political posturing is not interesting to me. It is NOT discourse.

    Meanwhile our waters are being bloodied and polluted. I spend time with young people and children who will not care who the f is elected next November. But they will have to live with the filth we leave them. They will not care who's fault it is. BP or Obama or Bush or whoever. They will not care. But they WILL care that they are inheriting a huge effing life changing mess.


    Some of us (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    even go so far as to blame 40 years of environmental extremism that shut down nuclear power and oil shale while driving the rigs into more and more shaky situations.

    But that's just some of us.

    That Obama has been more interested in sending lawyers rather than engineers to the site is just more proof of what this administration is all about.

    Standby for the "take over." Next stop, $8.00 gas,


    Environmental extremism (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    Boy this is a funny post on every level.

    Environmental extremism.... I'm sure you are just parroting Palin 'extreme greenies' but if you take a moment to ponder, environmental 'extremism' is what BP is doing in the gulf right now.

    More lawyers than engineers.  ha!  Obama has filled BPs headquarters with engineers and specialists.

    8$ gas?  ha!  You are on a role today.  Of course no one will switch to alternatives and willingly pay 8$ a gallon for gas.  sheesh.


    Obama has filled BP with what?? (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    Surely you jest. Where did he get them? May I have a link please?

    As for parroting Palin I am of such an age that she is parroting me.



    Sheesh (none / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:31:53 PM EST
    Get a link for you?  Do your own research.  You are the most fact challenged person I have ever encountered.  Do you really have no idea what is going on at BPs headquarters?  Try a little google, there are even photos of rooms packed with industry experts and scientists.  They've been there for weeks.

    (What am I writing?  IDF put up photos of their 'evidence' and you refuse to look them up and keep telling stories about weapons.)


    BTW - What alternatives? (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    $60,000 electric cars that go 50 miles on a charge?

    Public transportation? In small towns that don't even have taxi service anymore because of all the government regs??

    BIORN there is a country between BosNYDC and San Francisco.

    And it is getting more and more unhappy with the current situation.


    Lawyers? (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    Good to know the current propaganda your wingnut news sources are spreading. As I have alway's said, you are our ear to the wingnut echo chamber..

    (CNN) - The White House has ordered BP to fund Louisiana's plan to dredge up walls of sand along its coast to head off the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Wednesday.

    Sounds like engineers work, not lawyers.

    And $8.00/gal gas would be a great thing. Maybe then American's would start to think about it's oil addiction, and it's world class position as #1 polluter.


    Watch out. Greater New York City (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    area, with its public transportation, might get even more crowded.

    probably takes a bit of oil (none / 0) (#129)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    to service and heat NYC. Transitioning off oil will be a very painful process. Much more poverty and displacement.

    It took Obama's administratiuon some (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:26:56 PM EST
    17 days to give LA permission to do the dredging..

    You actually want to brag about that?


    And the fact that you don't understand that there millions of people who don't live in apartments in concrete towers who must drive to work in order to eat is normal and expected of you.

    Take the A train. The rest of us don't have free rides.


    Those of us that don't drive (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    are very adept at getting around outside of NYC. I would say that we can be very resourceful.

    Interesting (for me anyway) development on the buses in NoCal since I last lived here, bus racks on the front of buses. And they are used :) Rapid transit cars also are all equipped for bikes, and they are also used. Yesterday, 3 bikers sitting next to me. None looked like a "biker" either. One was a pre-teen getting around. The key to good public transit is making it all work together. I can get anywhere throughout NoCal all on my own. And do. Everything hooks up and is scheduled together. Took just a bit of research up front.

    Reducing a dependency on oil is fairly easy if you're willing to look around a bit and be not so creative. It's really more relaxing also, imo. And I'm not talking just transportation :) And just so you know, I haven't lived in a "concrete tower" in my life. I'm partial to Victorians ;)


    This may come as a surprise to you (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:46:58 AM EST
    but there are hundreds of thousands of towns that have actual people living in and around them that do not have public transportation, either with or without bike racks.

    There are millions of people who get up every day, and if there jobs haven't been outsourced or destroyed by Obama's economy, must drive 30 miles or more to get to that one job that they were lucky enough to get.

    Now, reduce that. The fact is that we both know that you cannot.

    And welcome to the real world of real people with real lives and real probkems.


    That's Rush the scat muncher's (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    pseudo-argument: it's all the Sierra Club's fault; make them pay for the clean up.

    Next, get ready for the left wing govt "take over", as all the dominoes fall and the grand scheme concocted by "the extremists" goes into effect..

    These pinwheels actually vote..that's the worst part of this.


    Was #130 a reply to #129? (none / 0) (#135)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    Because saying that transitioning off of oil dependence is going to be very painful is just a fact. It WILL displace people and re-arrange wealth and thus create poverty among some.

    It's a reply to (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    that "it's the environmental extremist's fault" idiocy up above..

    And November is only 5 months away (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#156)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    could not agree w/you less jim about most things but your comment was absolutely called for

    The balancing to me is the reality (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    I do appreciate your views and your forthright expression of those views, Anne. My view is that--in a country with an essential two-party system--that it often comes to the dreaded choice for a number of people. Not to disparage your views, but that is what in fact will happen...if the unbroken history is any indicator.
    Yesterday, we referenced the longevity of marriage that you and I are fortunate enough to have experienced. Speaking only for me: When my husband & I have had the "big" disagreements that will occasionally happen, we have been fortunate enough to stumble upon this approach for us. When we are both decrying a present state of things and saying what we don't like (and--that can be quite legitimate) one of us tends to say "OK, what do you like, what are we doing right, how can we get x better." Not being preachy; just recounting something from which I've learned a lot.
    On a very personal note: In disagreements about person x or situation x or whatever, it can be very hard for me to deal with "no, no, no...bad, bad, bad" because the doors seem closed. Please think about opening the door.

    Sounds too much like 'let's be bipartisan'. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:11:54 PM EST

    Nope. I'm a lifelong Democrat. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    Louisiana is addicted. Vitter has become a BP apologist, lobbying to cap their liability. He is also lobbying for more drilling, as leases represent a large percentage of revenue for LA.

    What happens when you're a small government, pro-business conservative and your state gets pummeled by one of the worst man made disasters ever - not five years after getting pummeled by one of the worst natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina)? If you're Louisiana Senator David Vitter, you double down on offshore drilling and push for a liability cap for BP.

    Doubling down on drilling is not particularly surprising. Much of Louisiana's much-needed revenue comes from off-shore drilling leases. "By the same token, after every plane crash, you and I should both oppose plane travel," Vitter quipped on Sunday to CNN's Candy Crowley. "I don't think that is rational." Even Vitter's Democratic challenger, Rep. Charlie Melancon, reiterated his support for expanded drilling in the wake of the disaster.....

    Vitter leads Melancon comfortably in polls and he's nearly quadrupled Melcancon's $2.5 million fundraising haul. But he must now find a way to explain to angry constituents why he wants to limit the damages they might claim from the oil giant in the wake of the growing disaster - a political crack Democrats in Louisiana are looking to force open. After all, in this climate the only thing worse than being on the side of Washington is being on the side of big oil.



    Jindal too (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    I usually think Leonard Pitts is a hack, but he nails it on this one:

    You know what they say: It's all fun and games till somebody gets hurt. Well, the Gulf Coast is hurt, hurt in ways that may take years to fully assess, much less repair. And the sudden silence from the apostles of small government and free markets is telling.

    Their argument is not fundamentally wrong. Who does not believe government is frequently bloated, inefficient and bound by preposterous rules? Who does not think it is often wasteful, complex and redundant?

    Yes, government is not perfect. Nor is it perfectible. As adults, we should understand that. Any bureaucracy serving 309 million people and representing their interests in a world of 6.8 billion people, is likely always to have flaws. Thus, fixing government will always be an ongoing project.

    But instead of undertaking that project, people like Jindal rail against the very concept of government itself, selling the notion that taxation and regulation represent the evisceration of some essential American principle. They wax eloquent about what great things the free market and the free American could do if government would just get off their backs.

    One thinks of one's meat oozing with salmonella, one's paint filled with lead, one's car getting 12 miles to the gallon, one's self being breezily denied a job for reasons of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation and, yes, one's ocean covered from horizon to horizon with a sheen of oil. And one shudders.

    Government is not our enemy. Government is the imperfect embodiment of our common will. That is a not-so-fine distinction Jindal and others like him have lost in the rush to stoke the sense of grievance that burns in some conservative souls. It is a distinction they recalled with great clarity as oil began spilling on their waters.

    As there are no atheists in foxholes, it turns out there are no small-government disciples in massive oil spills. No, with BP oil soaking the sands of his coastline, Bobby Jindal turned righteously to that big, sometimes bloated, often intrusive federal government, and asked for help. He said: Send money, send resources.

    You will notice he never once said: Send less.

    seems like a repub site (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    from the list of interviews (jonah goldberg, david frum et al.)

    but the rightwing has no monopoly on misogyny - or fanaticism

    Addicted, No Sign of Recovery (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    PITTSBURGH -- President Barack Obama pressed Congress to scrap billions in oil company tax breaks and pass legislation to help the nation kick a dangerous "fossil fuel addiction" Wednesday, trying to channel disgust over the worsening oil disaster into a force for clean energy.

    Seeking opportunity in a crisis, Obama argued for action in Congress as crews struggled into a seventh week to contain BP's mangled oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. He urged lawmakers to shift the tax-break money toward clean-energy research and approve a major energy bill, now stalled in the Senate, that would slap a price on carbon emissions.

    "Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security," he declared. "It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk."

    "If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction -- if we don't factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and true economic costs -- we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future," he said.

    Obama faces serious difficulties in pushing for the bill he wants -- a shrinking legislative window in a divisive election year, the distracting nature of the oil spill crisis itself and the contentious idea of putting a price on carbon pollution.


    Yeah, until we take responsibility nothing is going to happen. It is always someone else's fault..  turn the A/C a little higher..  the giant screen teevee is generating too much heat.

    now that is funny (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    turn the A/C a little higher..  the giant screen teevee is generating too much heat

    but is obama still pushing clean (sic) coal?


    Energy forecasts (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    I thought new readers might be interested in what the US government--that is, the US Energy Information Administration-- has to say about future US oil production and future US renewable production. I have taken the forecast information from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010.

    The interesting part is between these paragraphs at the link.


    The EIA in its forecasts is expecting very large growth from renewables, but even with this growth, fossil fuels are expected to continue to provide the vast majority of energy supply to 2035. The "new" renewables are expected to grow rapidly, but the "old" renewables are expected to grow much more slowly.

    There is good reason to suspect EIA forecasts are too high, both for renewable energy and for other energy sources. The "new" renewables show very large increases. It is not clear that they are attainable. Also, if there is a conscious effort to scale back fossil fuel usage, this may reduce fossil fuel use going forward. If renewable energy sources are already estimated optimistically, total fuel use may drop by more than the forecasts would suggest.

    I think the misuse of the medical model... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    i.e. oil 'addiction,' is one of the biggest problems facing conversion to any other energy source.

    The infrastructure, roads, housing, agriculture, all of these are based on energy, and at present that means oil. But let's look at the term 'addiction' here. Are US citizens addicted to oil? are businesses? Only in the same way that mammals are 'addicted' to oxygen. Society in 2010 needs energy to survive in its current form.

    I don't want to see a return to massive coal plants, or to firewood. The ash spill last year was enough for me to recognize, again, the unsustainability of carbon consumption.

    So... what are the alternatives? Nuclear, with the generation iii reactors (at least one exists in Japan, and more are being built in China).

    Solar in the future, as well as hydrogen, as well as fusion. But for now, what?

    It's not as simple as saying, "quit using oil, quit driving, kill your AC and your television."

    TVA has planse to bring somewhere between one and four reactors online within the next 5-10 years. I'm not thrilled by more nuclear plants, but what's the real alternative within the same timeframe?

    Energy... an issue worth discussing.

    that said, I will be happy to watch BP be sent into receivership.

    n.b. Shallow versus deep drilling... humans can dive to the shallow depths. Might not mean much, but I would be a lot more confident if divers, as opposed to unmanned or manned submersibles, could reach the spew in the Gulf.

    For me, I am thinking of driving to the Alabama gulf coast this weekend. Sort of a last visit, in case it's destroyed. I grew up spending weeks there every summer as a child.


    Query: on BBC/NPR last night, (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:11:25 PM EST
    British experts opined one of the problems is BP got rid of many, many engineers and outsourced to contract engineers.  Not much in-house expertise post spill.  Have you heard this also?

    Haven't heard this... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    I don't know, but since the platform wasn't a BP platform, it's a transocean one, or a deepwater one. It's convoluted.

    since it's not owned by BP, I wonder about the engineers. Could be that the 'business model' approach made it cheaper for BP to outsource its drilling and engineers.

    Another problem with the interlocked or intercontracted corporations. Who's actually responsible? Where's the name?


    Outsourced (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:26:58 PM EST
    I wrote yesterday that BP was unnecessary in this because of the outsourcing.  My thought was, rather than 'firing' BP, which could void or somehow interfere with the standing of the contracts, the govt could 'seize' BP and keep everything in place.  BP is there to control it's own PR.  Nothing else.  The expertise is not coming from BP nor the clean up efforts.

    Do you think this is risk avoidance, (none / 0) (#146)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    or is it profit maximization? Or some combination thereof?

    I'm guessing that BP owns some leases, but does BP own even the tankers they use or the refineries they operate?


    There is, (none / 0) (#165)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    tragically, a side of the BP story that isn't known widely. Great Britain's government workers, whose pay & pensions have already been decimated by the economic/financial blow-up, will now suffer an additional, horrific decline as BP stock makes up a huge percentage of their pension plan.

    As millions of old folks head into their "golden years" with empty nest eggs, I wonder what "golden parachutes" await BP's executives.


    I have asked time and again for someone (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:56:46 PM EST
    to give me a practical alternative. No one has and I doubt they will give one to you.

    Of course we have been reducing our carbon usage for years and years. The auto became the current villain for the same reason smoking went out of style... People started smelling and seeing the result......

    Fifty plus years ago Robert Heinlein, one of the world's greatest science fiction authors wrote TANSTAAFL.

    "There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."

    And there still isn't. The best near term thing I can see is hybrids. They are affordable and could almost immediately, well within 8 years, double the fleet MPG. Problem is that the country is broke and the economy is dead.

    And building windmills isn't gonna fix it.

    In the meantime I'm giving 8 to 5 that TVA won't get a nuke on line within 10 years.

    The environmentalists won't permit it.


    Update on Slado - did you miss me? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 09:20:38 AM EST
    To all.

    I have been absent a while due to another battle with cancer.

    This was/is my 4th time going under the knife to remove a rare form of germ cell cancer.   In 1997 @ 23 I was diagnosed with germ cell cancer and had a 12 pound tumor removed from my chest along with 4 rounds of chemotherapy.   I was lucky to survive that and then had 2 follow-up treatments for this disease in 2000 and 2003 which involved large surgeries and no chemo.  After almost 7 years of being cancer free my wife and i (who has been there with me since 1997) where shocked to find out a few weeks ago that I had developed another tumor in my T-10 vertebrae.   This type of germ cell is a rare form of testicular cancer that you are born with and my type always develops in the thoracic region or chest.

    So once again I went under the knife and had the tumor removed along with the vertebrae and am now home recovering.

    I hope to be back to normal in 6-8 weeks so I warn you I have a little more free time on my hands and you may see some more of my right wing/libertarian comments (drug enhanced) in the coming weeks.  

    I want you all to know that I have really enjoyed the opinions and debate that this wonderful site (thanks jeralyn & BTD) has enabled me to experience since I first started logging on in 2000.  I really appreciate the opinions of my fellow TL bloggers and I look forward to reading your opinions, disagreeing, agreeing and commenting as I recover.

    take care,


    Take care of yourself! (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    My we have quite the recovery ward around here between you and MileHi!

    Our fingers crossed for a quick and successful recovery!


    Of course we missed ya Slado... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    jeez man you've really been through the ringer haven't ya...my thoughts are with ya, and I wish you a full speedy recovery brother.

    Looking forward to your painkiller-fueled comments...and if your docs are holdin' out on the good sh*t you know who to call:)



    recuperate well! (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    glad to hear from you. Hope that you are soon u p and about.

    Glad You are Back (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    And that you are recovering well. Take care of yourself -- keep us posted on your progress and I'll be looking forward to your comments.

    Did miss you! Sorry you have had to go through (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    so much. Hope the 8 weeks goes by fast and you feel better every day.

    Oy! (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    Good luck for a speedy recovery..  You sound like a survivor, so I am not too worried.

    Thanks for the well wishes (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    There are ups and downs but one benefit is time.  

    Time to reflect on the blessings of one's life.  Time to enjoy a crappy movie on Lifetime, time to blog, time to read and learn something new and time to spend quality moments with friends and family.

    Thanks again guys.  You're well wishes mean a lot.


    Was It Legal? (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    CSM examines the question whether Israeli troops storming the relief flotilla in international waters was legal.

    "The real question is: "Is the blockade itself lawful?'" says Douglas Guilfoyle, a specialist in international and maritime law at King's College London. "Everything else turns on that."

    Mr. Guilfoyle says that under the international Law of Armed Conflict a state that has legally established a blockade can enforce it by boarding vessels in international waters that it reasonably expects might breach the blockade.

    But a blockade itself is illegal, he says, "if it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained... so therefore intercepting a vessel on the high seas to support or enforce the blockade would not be lawful."....

    Israel already faces legal action at home. A group of Israeli lawyers petitioned Israel's high court hours after the operation, calling it "an act of piracy" involving hijacking, robbery, wrongful arrest, and kidnapping.

    Phelps (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    of the anti-gay church is coming to town to protest in front of my old highschool.  Not really sure why... frankly, it's kind of stupid on his part as they are using his presence to successfully raise a whole lot of money in order to promote a "homosexual agenda", aka teach tolerance.

    Boy did they pick the wrong crowd.  This is a school that seriously knows how to fundraise.  Not to mention, they are gonna have outspoken 12 year olds putting them in their place.

    Sounds Like A Movie (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    Or at least a good short comedy. Oddly Phelps was a civil rights lawyer that won a fair amount of discrimination cases in favor of African Americans, in the 60's. Seems like he went nuts in the late 70's and was disbarred:

    A formal complaint was filed against Phelps on November 8, 1977, by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.[21] Phelps lost the case; according to the Kansas Supreme Court:
    The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady.[21]

    In an appeal, Phelps prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that Phelps had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady. Phelps had committed perjury.[21]



    Good link, squeaky (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    Thanks.  Phelps clearly went completely around the bend long ago.  The question remains, are all his followers certifiably nuts, too?  (My answer would be: yes, they are.)

    There was a small group of them (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    Standing outside Arlington Cemetery on Monday when I was over there.  Crazy.  There was a "counter-protest" across the street with people holding up signs with the "Support our Troops" type of stuff.

    One woman was singing some crazy song about Obama, others were holding the typical "God hats F@gs" signs.  People passing by (most who had probably never heard of this group) were just kind of shaking their heads in amazement.


    Phelps is good for the equality movement. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    You can be a dyed in the wool conservative who out and out dislikes gay people and still find Phelps repulsive.

    Nebraska CSI head sentenced to prison (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    for planting blood evidence that led to two people serving prison time for a crime they didn't commit.

    According to the linked article, the head of the CSI in Nebraska's largest county planted a speck of blood which was enough to keep two innocent people incarcerated for shotgunning a couple of other people to death.  Only after two other people confessed to the crime were the innocents freed.  The CSI guy will spend some time in prison;  he could not afford an appeal bond.

    And, yes, the courts are bracing for a wave of appeals from everyone who had CSI evidence in their case.

    There should be (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    appeals on every case he worked on.  This is basically akin to vigilantism- it's even worse when a law enforcement official does it.  He decides someone is guilty (and wants to make his lab look good), so he plants evidence to get a conviction.  In how many other cases did he cross so far over the line?

    Maybe OJ didn't do it? (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    Yesterday we had some (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    discussions about what happened aboard the ship.

    I just saw a video showing soldiers being attacked by "peace activists" with iron bar as the rappelled down from the 'copter and onto the deck.

    The video was very clear. No doubt.

    No news from Planet Wingnut (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    alters the fact that nine people were murdered in international waters while in the act of delivering school supplies to children desperate for the kind of basic necessities that your fellow White Citizens take for granted..

    And speaking of yesterday, are you ready to apologize yet for shamelessly lying out your as* about those boats "delivering weapons to Gaza"?


    Lead Editorial (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    Today's NYT....

    Israel and the Blockade
    Published: June 1, 2010

    [The supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian intentions. The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a statement before Monday's deadly confrontation: "A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade."]


    so what? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    they aren't humanitarian because they expected the other side to use violence?

    Of course they wanted to draw attention to the blockade.  They wouldn't have gone there otherwise.  The fact that Israel took the bait and acted like the @ssholes that everyone expected them to be does not magically make Israel the victim here.


    It was (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    In response to your simplistic belief: "....delivering school supplies to children...."

    Does it bother you at all that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, who to this day declare their #1 goal is to annihilate Israel?

    How many "school supplies" could have been bought with the money that purchased 4000 rockets Hamas launched against civilian targets in Israel?


    Does Democracy Bother YOu Too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    Hamas was elected in a democratic vote.

    "Everyone was against the elections," Dahlan says. Everyone except Bush. "Bush decided, `I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.' Everyone is following him in the American administration, and everyone is nagging Abbas, telling him, `The president wants elections.' Fine. For what purpose?"

    The elections went forward as scheduled. On January 25, Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Legislative Council.

    Few inside the U.S. administration had predicted the result, and there was no contingency plan to deal with it. "I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Condoleezza Rice told reporters. "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing."

    "Everyone blamed everyone else," says an official with the Department of Defense. "We sat there in the Pentagon and said, `Who the f*ck recommended this?' "...

    Under Bill Clinton, Dahlan says, commitments of security assistance "were always delivered, absolutely." Under Bush, he was about to discover, things were different. At the end of 2006, Dayton promised an immediate package worth $86.4 million--money that, according to a U.S. document published by Reuters on January 5, 2007, would be used to "dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza." U.S. officials even told reporters the money would be transferred "in the coming days."

    The cash never arrived. "Nothing was disbursed," Dahlan says. "It was approved and it was in the news. But we received not a single penny."

    Any notion that the money could be transferred quickly and easily had died on Capitol Hill, where the payment was blocked by the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Its members feared that military aid to the Palestinians might end up being turned against Israel.

    Vanity Fair

    Heckofajob BushCo... fouled up once again. Some could say that BushCo support of Fatah and their failed coup was only in hope that all the Palestinians would blow each other up, and end the Palestinian problem.


    So was HIitler "elected." (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    No problem until he decided to conquer the world and kill 6 million Jews.

    Rather nasty after that.


    first of all (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    I did not write that post.

    Second of all, yes it bothers me.

    Does it bother you at all that Israel is stopping humanitarian aid from reaching the people of Gaza - many of whom may not support Hamas?  I seriously doubt they have 100% approval in Gaza.  How many school children do you think are fighting for Hamas?

    Does it bother you at all that Israel took out civilians on that ship?  Or are some civilians more important to you than others?

    All of this bothers me, I doubt you can find a single statement I've made that supports Hamas.  But I'm not gonna sit back and watch misinformation being spread about "radical muslim turks sending weapons to Gaza", and I'm not gonna feel bad for Israel because they acted like @ssholes and now have to deal with the international consequences.


    Raising awareness is a humanitarian intention... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    The Gaza aid flotilla recognized that, if the Israeli Defense Forces attacked them, it would raise awareness of the Gaza blockade and increase public sympathy for the struggle of the Palestinian people (aka solidarity).

    This is akin to South-African anti-apartheid protesters who recognized that a violent response from the SA military/police would draw attention to apartheid and create support for their cause.


    You Forgot This Part (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    There can be no excuse for the way that Israel completely mishandled the incident. A commando raid on the lead, Turkish-flagged ship left nine activists dead and has opened Israel to a torrent of criticism.

    This is a grievous, self-inflicted wound.....

    At this point, it should be clear that the blockade is unjust and against Israel's long-term security.....

    Mr. Obama needs to state clearly that the Israeli attack was unacceptable and back an impartial international investigation. The United States should also join the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Britain, France, Russia and China -- in urging Israel to permanently lift the blockade.

    Haaretz has a good take on the incident as well.


    I didn't forget (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    I just wonder how we would respond to living every second of every year for over half a century surrounded by hundreds of millions of people whose sworn goal claims we don't have a right to exist.

    Is it too much to ask Hamas to renounce their death sentence towards Israel and all it's inhabitants? Egypt did it, so did Jordan.

    There can be peace. But not if the price is delivering the corpses of yourself, and your family, to crazed Islamists who have proven for all to see that murder, not peace, is their only goal.


    Would you please stop with the facts? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    I mean, really.

    The simple fact is that (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    there's never going to be peace as long the fanatics in Israel -- and there's no sense continuing the charade that there aren't fanatics aplenty there -- insist that it's their Divine Right
    to play "white (european) man's burden" with the lives of people who have been driven off their own land and herded and enclosed like cattle: because the great desert warlord in the sky "gave the land to Israel" (some basis for an enlightened democratic state, btw.)



    Warlord In The Sky? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    No, that is not how the land was doled out. In fact the "warlord in the sky" said that no one was to return to the promised land until the messiah came.

    As far as I can tell there has been no sign of any Messiah. As grandiose as Lieberman, or Bibi, imagine themselves they do not cut it, Messiah wise.


    Make that 9 people killed (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    in self defense.... Iron bars and knifes are deadly weapons...

    Just ask Daniel Pearl...


    Iron bars? (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    You keep saying that.  The photos of 'weapons' by the IDF are wooden rods.  Then again, the photos they are posting as 'evidence' have dates of 2003 and 2006 so we'll just have to wait and see.

    My favorite bit of 'evidence' is the electic saw.  ha!  It's a friggin' grinder.  Morons.


    Okay if you like wooden rods (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    Take up thy staff and strike thee....

    The video I saw looked like concrete rebar rods cut into 3 foot lengths. A very lethal weapon.


    2003 and 2006 (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    I see Jim's still adhering to his usual (non-existent) standards of integrity..

    Rather than IDF (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:55:18 PM EST
    He would rather go by his own talking points than go to the IDF website and view their own documentation of the 'weapons' the IDF claimed to have seized.  Bizarre.

    Take youir claim to Fox News (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    They might care.

    heh (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:52:25 PM EST
    12 people killed (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    and at least 25 injured in a massive shooting in UK

    Suspect found dead in a wooded area.  Police are working 30 different crime scenes.

    good gawd (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    quote of the day:

    John Bevir, a reporter for CNN affiliate ITV, described nearby Whitehaven as a sleepy seaside town. "Things like this just don't happen here," he said. "Well, they didn't, until this morning."

    I would say that not a victim had a gun (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    to defend themselves with.

    Gun control is so great, eh?


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    The best argument I heard to counter that came from a retired police chief who said, after another tragedy like this that police, who train and train to shoot, and are used to working in stressful conditions, miss most of their shots, so I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable with an average Joe or Jane thinking they are going to be better shots than trained officers.  More likely than not, there will be more unnecessary casualties in a situation like this from "friendly fire".

    Actually it is the presence of the (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:38:10 PM EST
    victim's gun that does most of the protecting.

    As to whether that hit anything or not is meaningless SINCE THEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!

    So we'll never know if they could have won the Silver Cup, will we?

    And unnecessary casualties? Surely you jest.

    As for what police want I care not. The typical policeman/woman arrive in time to do the paper work and direct the cleanup of the blood and other bodily fluids.

    And yes, I'm yelling for emphasis so don't take it personal.


    All I'm saying (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    Is your thesis is faulty.

    All I'm saying is that you can't defend (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    yourself if the government has taken your means of defense.

    I think my position is logical and defensible.


    I understand that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    But your original statement was that "not a victim had a gun to defend themselves with" - assuming that if someone had a gun, they wouldn't have died, or the shooter would have been stopped.  

    I say that's a fallacy, as you have no way of knowing that, or knowing that the victim would have missed and shot someone else.

    It's not so black and white to say that.  And you certainly can't say that it's a deterrent, when you have (possibly) a madman doing the shooting.


    That argument is sterile and (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    smacks of viewing everything from a distance, isolated from the real world.

    As I said, the cops get there in time to do reports and clean up.

    My original comment was correct. Per British law I say that none had a weapon to defend themselves. That's damnable at best and demonstrates a lack of caring for the safety of the citizen... or worse, a fear that the citizen make a more stringent demand on his government.


    Glorified custodians? (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    What happened to that rw idealizing of anyone in a uniform who carries a weapon? Or, is that just when the Republicans are in office?

    Also, you have no way at all of knowing whether anyone ELSE other than the murderer had a gun; you just assume it in order to exploit a tragedy for the purposes of dropping in yet another typical American rw talking point, i.e., talk radio level drool about the Second Amendment..    


    As usual you are full of (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 07:07:18 AM EST
    misconceptions. For at least the 10,000th time I am not a "RW" so how they might view "anyone in uniform" is unknown to me..... and you.

    My comment remains. If a person without a gun is attacked by a person with a gun it is most likely that the gunless person will die.


    If you were any further to the Right, (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    you'd be promoting faith-based, SS reenactments here. Though, I do find the ongoing "who, me?" act borderline hilarious, just for it's blatant dishonesty and dumbness.

    Also, I cant help but be reminded of the way your brothers-in-arms like to snipe abortion clinics, when I read these simple-minded, Guns Save Lives arguments like yours..


    Yeah (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people..

    As if a vacationer is going to be able to (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    defend himself when caught by surprise by a mailman on a rampage, even if he packed a gun on his vacation. Give it a rest.

    Give yourself a rest (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    One thing is for sure. If you don't have a gun you are not going to protect yourself.

    Your point is mere speculation.


    If only someone else (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    had had a gun is what? A non-speculative observation?

    Hmmm. What was the reason for (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    U.S. government recently deciding to permit people to carry firearms while visiting our national parks?

    See Greenwald, again, on Israel's (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    boarding of flotilla.

    Joran van der Sloot (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    of Natalee Holloway fame (or infamy) is back in the news. Seems he is the prime suspect in the murder of a woman in Lima, Peru, and is now an international fugitive.

    A young Dutchman previously arrested in the 2005 disappearance of Alabama teen Natalee Holloway is the prime suspect in a weekend murder of a Peruvian woman, police said Wednesday.

    Joran van der Sloot is being sought in the Sunday killing of 21-year-old Stephany Flores in a Lima hotel, Criminal police chief Gen. Cesar Guardia told a news conference. He said the suspect fled the country the next day by land to Chile.

    The Dutch government said Interpol has issued an international arrest warrant for Van der Sloot.

    Awful. Really awful. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    Not saying there was anything that could have been done legally to hold him in Aruba based on the lack of evidence. But still, really awful for the families of both of these young women.

    Wave of the future re smartphones/ (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    unlimited data:   LAT

    Please, God, don't let the Mets (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 07:13:29 PM EST
    win their first away series of the season by beating the Pads!

    Breaking: God is a Pads fan. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    Walk off grand slam by Adrian Gonzalez wins the game in extra innings.

    Boo Hiss (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    Ford to cease Mercury production (none / 0) (#148)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 08:12:49 PM EST
    by the end of the year. Goodbye, lead sled.

    My first car. Various shades of pink. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 11:45:31 PM EST
    an example of Detroit's lead sled: (none / 0) (#149)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    lead sled

    h/t Squeaky for the easy linkie!

    Nice (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    Jeff Koons just did a car too.

    Mayflys (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    Not the best time (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    to drive the historic and lovely Great River Road, with windshield wipers going to get the bugs off, I bet.

    Btw, it's La Crosse -- also historic and lovely in parts, as one of the oldest of the many French and Metis settlements and the site of Native American settlement for thousands of years, near the sacred mound at what the French called Trempeleau.  The Great River Road, especially the stretch from La Crosse to the even older Prairie du Chien, is well worth seeing.  As Mark Twain said, as the man who knew the river so well, the upper Mississippi merits much less attention in literature and lore but is far more beautiful than the lower area.


    yep (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    spent years working on that part of the river.  including in Mayfly season a couple of times.

    it is very beautiful.


    CC, I'm looking (none / 0) (#199)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:02:05 AM EST
     at a position in wisconsin but need to ask some questions... can you email me at bobodix AT yahoo?

    that was for cream, yes? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    dont really know much about anything but the river and a few river towns where I got on and off boats.

    yep, Cream lives in t he (none / 0) (#202)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    dairy state, doesn't she?

    just got some of these (none / 0) (#203)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    they are awsum.

    just like be a barefoot kid in arkansas.

    vibram fivefingers

    very very cool short film (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:42:54 AM EST