Wanted to mention a couple things:
what do you all think of this barton's comments and the right wing blogoshpere, talk raido reaction to Obama "requesting" the 20 billion escrow account from BP?
little background: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/gop-outraged-by-shakedown_n_615...
i also saw a right wing blog supporting barton, but i cant seem to find today. the writer was incensed by Obama admin "shaking down" BP.
i mean, come on. talk about a party that has "lost touch". do any republicans really think this line of reasoning has legs? i would like to survey gulf coast residents impacted (very likely dispropotionally republicans) if they would be willing to forego their checks...and perhaps wait 5 years to get them. how on earth do repubs and the talk radio hosts think apologizing to BP is going to resonate with voters? i don't get it.
also, great article in recent rolling stone by tim dickinson. best article i've read yet. and it skewers obama. this article is tremendously disturbing at best.
heres and interview with him
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/11/rolling_stones_tim_dickinson_on_th...
and the article
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0
i highly recommend reading it if you havent already. out of date already, but it gives a damning recounting of events.
there is no 2 ways about it - BP was out of control. the more you read about BP, their role, the regulatory environment, etc it is 110% clear to me that while regulatory capture obviosuly contributed to this disaster, the real blame is not with the government. it is with BP. the biggest fault the government made was BELIEVING BP.
an interesting result of all this has been some discussion of points e and i have been talking about a la limited liability. uynfortunately, all the right wing talking points i am reading and hearing are very consistent in their diagnousis - this disaster points to the need to MAINTAIN limited liability. any idea of REMOVING or even discussing adding liability to corporations for this kind of stuff is greeted with frothing at the mouth calls of socialism, un americanism, chicago style politics etc.
i have no idea what a republican administration would have done if they had been in office.
from what i am able to udnerstand the right wing has lost it's mind. consider the following:
the federal government did not do enough.
it was a chicago style shakedown of BP.
ummmmm...huh? it still is far from clear to me exactly what the right wing thinks should be happening.
the most coherent argument i have heard is this:
the cause of this disaster was the environmentalits. if environmentalists had not closed the doors on loads of other drilling areas, this would not have happened.
nevermind that it is factually suspect. it is the only coherent thought i have heard to date.
by the way, you all hear/see this yet? it's making the rounds. further proof that the real fault of this disaster lay with the environmentalists. LMAO
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/0704OILCOL49.asp
obviously i suspect it is a crook, but who the hell knows.
leak
damn, i sent this email about how the leak is all "exagerrated" and whatnot and it doesnt seem to be going through.
in a nutshell, time has an article about "was the leak exaggerated" etc.
my prediction: leading up the election, the repub talking point will be, wait for it...Obama overreacted.
no more talk of booms, skimmers, an aloof president. it will be that HE DID TOO MUCH FOR NOTHING.
can you say swine flu?
there is no oil to clean up.
NO OIL TO CLEAN UP.
epic freaking lulz
RE: leak
just to remind everyone *again* the leak is a NON-ISSUE.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-08-02-1Amarshes02_C...
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-mike-thomas-oil-spill-08031...
meanwhile, this is the kind of stories we are getting now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/nbcs-anne-thompson-reflec_n_660...
you gotta be joking. there's no oil. period. there will be NO impact. this is nuts.
of course, its all about the marshes. and the effect and impact will not be truly known for decades if ever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR201007...
i need everyone to reflect on this for a while. this incident DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT IT WAS.
just think about that. even the possibility. please.
and what it means for the future. contrary to most immediate expectations, this incident will be used exactly how MY insanely skeptical mind said it would be: to increase drilling for oil. it misses the point totally to think that the BP spill would lead to mass evacuation, marshall law and carbon based cap and trade and AGW legislation. POPPYCOCK I SAY!!!!!
this is a massive step toward furthering our inherent reliance on fossil fuel. we CAN'T stop. we are junkies. it's impossible for us to see otherwise.
RE: leak
this is just nuts. you know how they test the fist? THEY SMELL IT.
I love sea food, but aside from what i'm going to buying that comes
from the coast of maine next week, i think i'm gonna hold off on my
usual indulgences for a while.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100802/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_fisher...
VENICE, La. – Seafood from some parts of the oil-fouled Gulf of Mexico
has been declared safe to eat by the government, based in part on
human smell tests. But even some Gulf fishermen are questioning
whether the fish and shrimp are OK to feed to their own families.
Some are turning up their noses at the smell tests — in which
inspectors sniff seafood for chemical odors — and are demanding more
thorough testing to reassure the buying public about the effects of
the oil and the dispersants used to fight the slick.
"If I put fish in a barrel of water and poured oil and Dove detergent
over that, and mixed it up, would you eat that fish?" asked Rusty
Graybill, an oysterman and shrimp and crab fisherman from Louisiana's
St. Bernard Parish. "I wouldn't feed it to you or my family. I'm
afraid someone's going to get sick."
Now that a temporary cap has kept oil from spewing out of BP's
blown-out well for more than two weeks, state-controlled fishing areas
in Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi have slowly begun to reopen.
RE: leak
come on man, who you gonna believe?!?
BP official: I would serve Gulf fish to my family
By HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – 1 day ago
ON THE GULF OF MEXICO — BP's chief operating officer says he would eat fish from the Gulf of Mexico and would let his family eat it, too.
Doug Suttles took reporters on a boat tour of beaches and marshes Sunday about 25 miles south of Venice, La.
Some nearby areas reopened to fishing late last week, and some observers have questioned whether it's really safe.
Suttles says "they wouldn't open these waters ... if it wasn't safe to eat the fish." He also says he would eat it and "would serve it to my family."
He says he believes Gulf Shore residents will still find oil and tar balls washing ashore into the winter.
it bears pointing out that actual tests have been done as well...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/07/gulf-oil-spill-louisi...
but that amazingly, human noses are the best test around. it might sound insane, but frankly, it makes sense to me.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/nation/la-na-fish-sniffers-20100...
Each olfactory analyst has a super schnoz, able to smell oil diluted to one part per million. That's 40 times more sensitive than your average proboscis.
It's also more sensitive than science can explain. Last month, the team caught a faint scent in a red snapper that chemists and toxicologists could not confirm despite three days of testing at an NOAA marine science lab in Seattle. The result: A rich fishing area off Louisiana's coast stayed off-limits.
"The nose knows," Downs said.
RE: current status of the leak
when i say the fault is with BP, this is what i mean...
the response plan to a leak was apparently cut and pasted from an artic oil rig application. it talks about WALRUSES.
now, obviously the government should have READ the damn thing and been like....ummm...hello?
but obviously either they didnt read it, or they didnt care. either way, while this is an obvious example of regulatory capture, (or simply government stupidity) i still fail to see how regulatory capture explains EVERYTHING. it doesn't. what regulatory capture explains is a reason for those so inclinced to remove all regualtion. that's it. in the real world it doesnt add up to a hill of beans.