Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Offshore drilling (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Offshore drilling
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone did this intentionally it would be one of the most grotesque crimes I can recall. Would an environmentalist be willing to kill innocent bystanders and destroy what s/he wishes to protect more than anything in the world in order to make a point?
Not just to make a point. This catastrophe is going to have real consequences in terms of public policy. "Drill baby drill" is dead for the foreseeable future, maybe for good. One commentator on TV compared it to Three Mile Island, a comparatively minor incident, but one which (arguably) went a long way toward killing nuclear energy in the USA.

quote:
How does this compare with people who claim that 9/11 was a US government plot? Every single unexplained calamity that has ever happened that could conceivably have been accomplished by human effort has been claimed in a cherished conspiracy theory by some set of wing nuts. There are indeed sociopaths out there who are diseased enough to do horrendous things (Timothy McVeigh, the Anthrax poisoner...). They are a tiny fraction on the fringe of whatever cause they attach themselves to and claim to espouse, but they aren't rational enough to be said to really be members of any real organization. No group with even the most serious grievances against our government would be willing to claim them as representatives of their cause.
The difference between my suggestion and 911 conpiracy theory (and indeed, most conspiracy theories) is that a few or even one well-placed saboteur (for example, one of the workers at the platform) could have pulled off this particular catastrophe, whereas for September 11th, you'd have needed a cast of thousands, or even tens of thousands to be in on it.

But I am being (largely) tongue in cheek about this. I have no evidence that this was sabotage. Still, I think in the long run this could be a huge turning point in the environmentalist movement. This is not even the worst disaster we have seen of this type (as I understand it, Exxon Valdez was worse) but there may be a perfect storm brewing due to the climate change / energy debate, which has been supercharged in recent years by its inextricable connection to our dependance on Arab states and their oil and the link to Islamic terrorism. This is more than just an environmental disaster. It could trigger a major shift in environmental policy.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Still, I think in the long run this could be a huge turning point in the environmentalist movement.
There's not much point in winning an argument by having the destruction you warned about happen, if the whole point of your argument was in order to avert the destruction.

That'd be like e.g. having Israel aid Iranians to nuke their country, just in order to prove themselves right when they claimed Iran to be dangerous.

I can of course imagine sabotage from other oil-companies, or from other oil-producing nations as BP's losses are their comparative gain. Not much sense for it to have come from any sincere environmentalists though.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is not even the worst disaster we have seen of this type (as I understand it, Exxon Valdez was worse) but there may be a perfect storm brewing due to the climate change / energy debate, which has been supercharged in recent years by its inextricable connection to our dependance on Arab states and their oil and the link to Islamic terrorism.
From what you described, jason, it sounds like this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

If it wasn't this platform at this time, another platform at another time would have had a similiar effect.

[ May 06, 2010, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
False flag operations are one of the oldest tricks in political history with roots back to the Roman Empire.

I'm always amazed that people find it so difficult to believe other people are capable of
such things. You might never do such a thing, but plenty of people can, will, and do. It's not hard to imagine things getting out of control.

For example, it's now known that the US leadership knew the Japanese were heading to Hawaii in 1941 - hell, the US painted them into that corner and then hung our Pacific fleet out there for them to attack.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
There's not much point in winning an argument by having the destruction you warned about happen, if the whole point of your argument was in order to avert the destruction.

That's also assuming that the spill itself was the intent- if it was sabotage, the people doing it may have expected that the failsafes or other measures would have shut the spill itself off more quickly, but the situation unexpectedly got out of control.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's also assuming that the spill itself was the intent- if it was sabotage, the people doing it may have expected that the failsafes or other measures would have shut the spill itself off more quickly, but the situation unexpectedly got out of control.
They may have also underestimated the effects. Heck, even assuming they knew the effects, this spill is hardly a game-ending catastrophe on par with Israel being nuked. The planet is not going to die because of this oil spill, anymore than it was destroyed after Exxon Valdez. For our hypothetical eco-terrorist, a bad oil spill is a small price to pay if it takes out the knees of the oil industry and makes a turning point in the fight against climate change and fossil fuels, which actually do pose an existential threat.

At least that's the theory. This is obviously off in conjecture-land.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if we're going to conjecture without any evidence other than someone with a motive *could* have done this, let's pick on a group that has a clear agenda to create controversy and inhibit Obama's ability to govern effectively. That's right, Republicans have a far greater interest in embarrassing Obama's Administration than the Sierra Club. In fact, they have every reason in the world to have done this. It all is based on the simple fact (not conjecture) that they want Obama to fail, because then they can elect more Republicans. Here's how they could have thought it through:

1. They want Obama to look foolish right after he announces that he will open up off-shore drilling so he will backpedal to make it look like he isn't in command of the situation.
2. Knowing that any response that the Government makes will have potential points on which it can be criticized, they can attack Obama as a naive and poor administrator.
3. Knowing that there are 3500+ platforms in the gulf, they can rally people to support big oil by pointing out that this is the first ever oil disaster in the region.

I could go on, but those are actually plausible reasons why Republicans might do such a thing to advance their interests. Now, let's weigh that against all the plausible reasons that eco-terrorists would do it. The only one anyone has so far come up with is that they would be willing to destroy the one thing they serve to protect in order to prove that it could happen.

Very convincing.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"This is more than just an environmental disaster. It could trigger a major shift in environmental policy. "

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Not just to make a point. This catastrophe is going to have real consequences in terms of public policy. "Drill baby drill" is dead for the foreseeable future, maybe for good. One commentator on TV compared it to Three Mile Island, a comparatively minor incident, but one which (arguably) went a long way toward killing nuclear energy in the USA.

Accept that the only alternative to drilling inside of the US is buying large amounts of oil from overseas. I expect $100+ a barrel oil will, over the long run, overturn any proscriptions on drilling.

9/11 was a catastrophic event, far worse than this oil spill, but we still fly airplanes and go to work in skyscrapers.

Three Mile Island was only the tipping point for nuclear power, the underlying economics of nuclear couldn't compete with cheap coal and natural gas plants at the time. Nuclear is starting to have a resurgence, because the natural gas (and to some extent the coal) are no longer nearly as cheap.

In January 1979, natural gas was $1.02 in January 2010 natural gas was $5.14. In addition, the volatility of natural gas has become much higher.

Source

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts

Did you adjust those prices for inflation? Becuase I have heard that due to new drilling techniques, natrual gas prices are the lowest they have been in years.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Still, I think in the long run this could be a huge turning point in the environmentalist movement.
There's not much point in winning an argument by having the destruction you warned about happen, if the whole point of your argument was in order to avert the destruction.

That'd be like e.g. having Israel aid Iranians to nuke their country, just in order to prove themselves right when they claimed Iran to be dangerous.

I can of course imagine sabotage from other oil-companies, or from other oil-producing nations as BP's losses are their comparative gain. Not much sense for it to have come from any sincere environmentalists though.

Because oil companies HAVE to be populated by amoral asshats, right?
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just looked at your chart. It doest not seem to be adjusted for inflation. Also if you pick another month, say Dec.2009, it is the lowest it has been in almost 8 years.

I agree with it being volitile.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because oil companies HAVE to be populated by amoral asshats, right?
Not to mention being thundering retards, since this spill is a pox on the entire industry, not just one company.

Anyway, I was just having some fun with a little game of "what if"? I thought my sabotage scenario was far from the least plausible; indeed, I'm pretty sure that ruling out sabotage is going to be a priority when they investigate this catastrophe.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
I can of course imagine sabotage from other oil-companies, or from other oil-producing nations as BP's losses are their comparative gain.
Because oil companies HAVE to be populated by amoral asshats, right?
That's a weird inference you're making. The fact I can imagine the possibility, doesn't make the possibility necessary.

But as a sidenote yes: I understand that by law, every corporation is actually obliged to be as amoral as it is legally allowed to be. So yes, they are obliged to be populated by amoral asshats. By law.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not to mention being thundering retards, since this spill is a pox on the entire industry, not just one company.
People are going to stop using oil? If not, then what's a pox on companies drilling off the coast of America is a blessing on every other company worldwide who wouldn't be in that position.

And as I said, also other nations who wouldn't want to see America importing less oil.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by msquared:
JWatts

Did you adjust those prices for inflation? Becuase I have heard that due to new drilling techniques, natrual gas prices are the lowest they have been in years.

msquared

Using the Inflation Calculator I derived the inflation adjusted price of natural gas.

quote:
What cost $1.02 in 1979 would cost $2.98 in 2009.
So yes natural gas is substantially more expensive today than in 1979. Off one year there because the calculator only goes to 2009.

quote:
I just looked at your chart. It doest not seem to be adjusted for inflation. Also if you pick another month, say Dec.2009, it is the lowest it has been in almost 8 years.
Yes, but the trend is definitely upward.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trend with 2 data points?

It was upward until about two years ago and has been down hill since then. Did you look at the over all trends over the 20/30 years?

Let's look at the average over the 12 months of each year for several years.

1979 1.18 inf adj to 3.44
1989 1.69 inf adj to 2.89
1999 2.19 inf adj to 2.79
2005 7.32 inf adj to 7.97
2008 7.95 inf adj to 7.92
2009 3.71 no adjust

So the price of natural gas dropped dramatically in late 2008 and continued through 2009.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Either way elimination this county's dependence on oil would be the most important technological achievement in a generation.

There is no practical chance of eliminating America's dependence on oil in a generation. Even with an aggressive increase in electrical production and a significant switch to plug-in hybrids or pure electrics it's doubtful if our use of oil would drop by more than 1/3rd to 1/2.

Currently, aside from Picken's plan, I haven't heard of any ideas which would reduce oil demand below that level.

Since we import 2/3rd of our oil any curtailment in local oil production will only maintain the status quo, even assuming a large drop in oil usage. None of that even factors in population growth over the next generation, which assuming no changes in US border policy are likely to be very large.

So is there no practical way or will the Picken's plan work?

I didn't say it would be the greatest trade technological achievement in a generation because it would be easy. If we decide as a nation to make it a priority, like we did with putting a man on the moon, it is feasible. We need to aggressively build wind farms, on and offshore, and the transmission lines to get them to the cities. We need to build solar plants in the southwest and the necessary transmission lines for that power to be used as well. In addition I would suggest creating generous tax credits/incentives for micro wind and rooftop solar panels for a more distributed energy grid. We also need incentives for nat gas plug in hybrids and pure electric cars. The last piece that still needs research would be developing a high temperature super conductor to transmit the new energy production. To be realistic we would probably need to build some new nuclear reactors as well.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yosarian,

Some? I would say we would need a bunch. For the most part, nukes are the only really scalable energy form we have that can meet the needs that are coming.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The solid waste generators that Munga is working on getting implemented are also an interesting possible addition to that equation (and from what I gathered from the information about them that she posted Pickens is one of the investors trying to help them get off the ground)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by msquared:
Trend with 2 data points?

It was upward until about two years ago and has been down hill since then. Did you look at the over all trends over the 20/30 years?

Let's look at the average over the 12 months of each year for several years.

1979 1.18 inf adj to 3.44
1989 1.69 inf adj to 2.89
1999 2.19 inf adj to 2.79
2005 7.32 inf adj to 7.97
2008 7.95 inf adj to 7.92
2009 3.71 no adjust

So the price of natural gas dropped dramatically in late 2008 and continued through 2009.

msquared

There were some very large natural gas discoveries in the last 3 years, that coupled with a severe recession has acted to bring the price down.

If the prices stay low this could allow us to power a substantial amount of electric cars (plug-in hybrids, etc), however it would also act to deflate the wind turbine industry. Natural gas plants can be built as quickly as wind turbines and are cheaper, if the fuel is cheap.

However, natural gas wells lose productivity quickly so production won't remain high unless lots more wells are drilled. So it's still Drill, baby Drill [Wink]

quote:
So is there no practical way or will the Picken's plan work?

Picken's plan probably isn't practical, he abandoned it after all, but it's not out of the question.

The plan in a nutshell is to overbuild wind turbines which only produce power about 1/3rd of the time and use the natural gas this displaces from electricity to power the transportation industry. The Achille's hill of the plan is the Wind Turbine capacity factor of 30%. That means you would need to dedicate a huge amount of dispatchable power (read natural gas) to cover the times when the wind doesn't blow.

That's how Picken's was going to make a lot of money. He has both lots of good wind land that also has significant natural gas on it. Two birds with one stone.

Actually, I'm in favor of a modified Picken's plan.
Nuclear reactors as base load power replacing older coal plants as they retire.
Wind turbine farms in the windy regions with new high capacity low loss transmission lines to the high population areas.
Natural gas and hydro to balance out the wind troughs.
Natural gas to power trains, ships and trucks.
Plug-in hybrids and pure electrics for personal use.
Local oil to cover legacy engines and planes.
Bio-diesel to supplement and gradually replace the natural gas in the transportation industry.

Growth in demand (population growth) covered by wind, natural gas and nuclear.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Still, I think in the long run this could be a huge turning point in the environmentalist movement.
There's not much point in winning an argument by having the destruction you warned about happen, if the whole point of your argument was in order to avert the destruction.

That'd be like e.g. having Israel aid Iranians to nuke their country, just in order to prove themselves right when they claimed Iran to be dangerous.

I can of course imagine sabotage from other oil-companies, or from other oil-producing nations as BP's losses are their comparative gain. Not much sense for it to have come from any sincere environmentalists though.

I remember going to a junkyard years ago looking for a part, and the junkyard dealer was in a very foul mood. When I questioned him on what was the matter; he said:
"Those Green Peace kids are idiots. They just dropped off fifteen vans, and I had to ask them why the freon hoses were all disconnected. They told me that air-conditioning is bad for the environment, so they just disconnected them. I ask them where do they think the freon went when they did that, and they just stared at me."

Maybe Green Peace is trying to make Obama make good on his campaign promise to keep the Japanese from slaughtering whales. [LOL]

Actually, this is a sad situation. On the one hand, it does, hopefully, encourage us to make environmental standards a priority, but on the other hand, it's an extremely weak position in the worldview that we have put ourselves in, when we can't even complete a task to supply ourselves with our own resources, without inflicting colossus damage to ourselves. [Frown]

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Going back to Greg's point that there is a vast difference between what Bush is accused of and what Obama has done, I dispute it.

For example, well BEFORE Katrina hit, Bush had discussed things with Nagin and the Governor, who felt they had things 'well in hand'. They had mobilized their troops, mandated evacuations, everything that could be done, had been done...or so they thought. Bush gave necessary orders...and went golfing.

Obama, with the Gulf, heard about it, listened to BP ('We got it covered Mr. President'), threw out a few orders, went out and told some jokes. Gave a few speeches. Waited 12 days before he visited.

Now, I certainly don't expect the President of the United States to be fondling a duck with some Brawny to clean it up...but nor do I expect a president to be slinging sandbags in a levee which, at heart is the responsibility of the city elders who decided to keep living below sea level, either.

Guess which one was dinged for essentially the same point? Hint: It wasn't the Democrat.

Likewise, the Ice Storm of 2009. One million people of Kentucky went for long periods of time without heat, electricity or water in some instances. I don't recall Obama visiting once. Would Bush have gotten away with that? Would Bush be allowed to wait 12 days to visit Katrina without comment? Was he given 4 days? No. A Billion, with a B dollars of damage has been done to Nashville. Obama is s.l.o.w.l.y designating counties as disaster areas (I know, I know, he's trying to be thrifty... [LOL] Couldn't keep a straight face...) A destroyed American city...not a priority. Where have I heard that before? Maybe Obama just hates Southerners? Tennesse probably isn't unionized enough.

Daniel Henninger has an intesting article on the WSJ.

quote:
The left and the media knee-capped the Bush presidency for not making Hurricane Katrina go away fast enough. So now, like a village feud in ancient Sicily, the right and its media are knee-capping the Obama presidency for not making the Gulf's spilled oil go away fast enough. Boo hoo.

Are we supposed to say that the criticism of Mr. Obama is unfair? Sorry. The permanent smackdown that is now U.S. politics has devolved into a zero-sum proposition whenever anything bad happens in American life—an oil spill, a terrorist bomb in Times Square, a financial meltdown, a mining disaster.

It works like this: If you occupy a position of leadership or responsibility in public or private life, your thought process in the face of disaster now runs rationally in this order: 1) Am I going to get blamed for this? 2) Is there anything we can do to help? 3) Will we get tagged if something goes wrong with that effort?


The answer of course to (1) and (3) is that you will get blamed for days on end, no matter what the facts are. If under some ancient compulsion of honor you admit some culpability, the plaintiffs lawyers will pillage your assets, and a political-media bonfire will burn down what's left of your reputation. Why go there? In the pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey world we occupy now, the political and legal price of taking ownership is too high.

The answer to (2)—can we help?—is a more interesting case, especially if we limit it to the idea that when a big disaster strikes the government should come forward.

It is obvious that the Obama White House initially wanted to put distance between itself and that oil spill. And why not? What were they supposed to do? But in a world of political-media blood sport, the politicians understand that their survival means they have to throw someone to the wolves. Thus, ahead of having any clue what caused the failure of the BP oil rig, Mr. Obama's interior secretary and his press secretary said the government's contribution would be to "keep a boot on the neck" of BP.

There's a valid reason why their main contribution will be to keep Uncle Sam's boot on BP's neck: The people who live inside the government know that what government can do is in fact rather limited.


Greg would like to quite fairly cite that a bajillion gallons of oil seeping out of the ocean tends to be immune to nice photo ops and speechifying. That's fine. You know what else is immune to those things? A bajillion trees knocked down between you and a city some idiot built below sea level...next to the sea. Tends to slow...things...down. Was Katrina a clusterf***? Yeah. Was this? Maybe. I wonder how many memos about EPA inspections and political donations the NYT is going to run?

My critique is about wanting it both ways. Being able to tag the opposition for not behaving perfectly in very extremem conditions...but wanting to discover and take grace from those limits when 'my guy' is on the stand.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Going back to Greg's point that there is a vast difference between what Bush is accused of and what Obama has done, I dispute it.
If Bush really did have the situation well in-hand and responded competently, can you explain why even the House Republicans in 2006 were willing to acknowledge the following:

quote:
2006 report compiled by House Republicans slammed what it called “a failure of leadership,” saying that the federal government’s “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror.” The report specifically blamed Bush, noting that “earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response” because the president alone could have cut through bureaucratic resistance.
I included the link the first time I introduced this evidence into this thread.

Your argument, and that of the article you quote from, seems to be that people were unfair to Bush, so now it is somehow proper to be unfair to Obama. My counter-argument is that (1) unfairness is wrong at all times, and so you are wrong now,and (2) the criticism of Bush was not unfair.

You never responded to my earlier post - are the rules of engagement that you seriously believe what you are arguing, and you are doing so in an attempt to discern the truth? Or are you just raising arguments in an adversarial approach, without regard for your own belief in the truth or falsehood of the points that you are making?

As for some of your other arguments, like he
quote:
Waited 12 days before he visited
I don't believe that was the main reason for the critique of Bush's performance ("blinding lack of situational awareness"). In fact, I remember more concern that when Bush showed up after Katrina he kept ~50 responders on hand for several hours so they could appear behind him in a photo op. I believe that among the explicit concerns that Obama's staff raised was that intention in visiting they wanted to minimize the impact on people actually responding to the problem.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mentioned this on Hatrack, too, but I'll ask it here:

This spill has had me musing on externalities. More specifically, how would the libertarians among us choose to handle this issue?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

Your analysis is as good as the news reporting...and as partisan. We have had much better analysis HERE (look at search button. Try Nagin's Culpability)

For slightly better information then the Washington Post, who was able to devote the absolute bottom of the article to any kind of perspective, I went to Wiki.

Summary Statement:


quote:
"The Select Committee identified failures at all levels of government that significantly undermined and detracted from the heroic efforts of first responders, private individuals and organizations, faith-based groups, and others."

"The Select Committee believes Katrina was primarily a failure of initiative."

"The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond more effectively to Katrina — which had been predicted in theory for many years, and forecast with startling accuracy for five days — demonstrates that whatever improvements have been made to our capacity to respond to natural or man-made disasters, four and half years after 9/11, we are still not fully prepared. Local first responders were largely overwhelmed and unable to perform their duties, and the National Response Plan did not adequately provide a way for federal assets to quickly supplement or, if necessary, supplant first responders."

It had been MORE then predicted. New Orleans even had a test run a year before during Hurricane Ivan which struck N.O. Nagin and Blanco had a barely passing grade then too.

quote:
More than 1 million people tried to leave the city and surrounding suburbs on Tuesday, creating a traffic jam as bad as or worse than the evacuation that followed Georges. In the afternoon, state police took action, reversing inbound lanes on southeastern Louisiana interstates to provide more escape routes. Bottlenecks persisted, however.

Col. Henry Whitehorn, head of state police, said he believes his agency acted appropriately, but also acknowledged he never expected a seven-hour-long crawl for the 60 miles between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

It was so bad that some broadcasters were telling people to stay home, that they had missed their window of opportunity to leave. They claimed the interstates had turned into parking lots where trapped people could die in a storm surge.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Nagin both acknowledged the need to improve traffic flow and said state police should consider reversing highway lanes earlier. They also promised meetings with governments in neighboring localities and state transportation officials to improve evacuation plans.

But Blanco and other state officials stressed that, while irritating, the clogged escape routes got people out of the most vulnerable areas.

"We were able to get people out," state Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc said. "It was successful. There was frustration, yes. But we got people out of harm's way."

This does not, however, scratch your narrative.

But our argument is getting to first principles.

I do NOT believe that the federal government is the first, best, or only option to respond to disaster. I fully expect difficulties, drama, mistakes and some tragedy. Through that lens, Katrina was bad, but not terrible. The system, lame, halting and inefficient (one certainly doesn't go to government for efficiency in my worldview) actually worked. By their own statements, FEMA and the Red Cross both state that a disaster area needs to deal with it's own problems for at least 72 hours and having 2 weeks of supplies is better. I actually take them at their word. Obviously Nagin and Blanco did not read the fine print...

You feel, I believe, that the federal government can and should work like a watch. Any problems are not the result of messy humanity, but blatant bumbling at the highest levels...at least if it's a Republican (Or perhaps your tolerance is inversely proportional to shared philosophy). So any hiccup can and should be judged quite harshly. There have been statements by that Right Wing Rag the New York Times that if the Feds had gotten off their kiesters earlier, maybe this oil spill wouldn't have been so bad. Perhaps...and if I borrow your lens, then Obama is as culpable as Bush for foot dragging. Bush at least had the courage to take blame.

This is part of the reason we differ so wildly on Obamacare. I expect the same professionalism, efficiency and budgetary discipline there as...pretty much any other government program. Military procurement, say. The Post Orifice. FEMA. And I will happily judge Obamacare by your metrics.

But we are getting further afield from the oil thing.

According to one source, if fire boomers had been brought in early, the oil could have been gathered and burned at the site it welled up from, keeping it from spreading. I don't know if I believe that. I also read a NYT report that Napolitano didn't know that the DoD HAD oil spill equipment she could have borrowed. Hmm.

I'll wait for the report in 2011...

[ May 07, 2010, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"Your analysis is as good as the news reporting...and as partisan."

One thing you can trust is that this accusation is completely objective and neutral, as have been your drippingly sarcastic comments about Obama's responses to a variety of other events. For the Kentucky disaster which you say Obama couldn't even be bothered to even take a look for 12 DAYS while he dined on steaks and pampered himself, you might consider these comments made by the Governor of Kentucky at the time:
quote:
Beshear asked Obama for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and Obama issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

On Saturday, Beshear ordered all of the state's Army National Guardsmen into action to distribute supplies, many of which came from FEMA. Sreenivasan reported that the 4,600-strong force was checking on rural residents door-by-door.

Beshear has consistently praised Obama, a fellow Democrat, for the attention he's devoted to the disaster.

"We have had tremendous and quick response from President Obama and his administration," Beshear said Monday. "I don't think any of our folks that have dealt with disasters before ever recall as quick a response as we got last Wednesday."

So you have to ask yourself three important questions, which you should also answer objectively and neutrally:

1. If the Governor of Kentucky had been a Republican, would Obama have responded differently?
2. Does this information influence your opinion about the handling of that disaster?
3. Do you think that you are arguing in this thread objectively and neutrally?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, I am pretty sure based on his response to direct questioning earlier in this thread, that Fly does not believe that it is worthwhile to argue objectively and neutrally - those don't appear to be values he espouses.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, was that really necessary?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So by my blatantly ignoring your insulting question, you can divine my motivation? How...predictable.
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd still like someone to answer my question. How would a libertarian recommend that this situation be handled?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you know how, Tom [Smile]

They would likely pull up stakes and move to the Pacific northwest, taking all their gold with them.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So by my blatantly ignoring your insulting question, you can divine my motivation?
So just tell me what you believe are the rules of engagement for debates here.

I can't figure out why you are unwilling to respond; one possible answer is that you do not wish to be held to any standards, but there might be other explanations (instead or as well). I see the possibility that we have different standards, in which case I should stop arguing that you should hold to my standards. Or or standards might be exactly the same. When I have tried to assert that some standards for discussion should exist between us, the conversation has been noticeably unproductive. It might help if you told me what standards you choose to adhere to.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and the AP reports that...

quote:
While the Obama administration has faced second-guessing about the speed and effectiveness of some of its actions, a narrative pieced together by The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government's response...

The AP review found that the administration - aware of the political scars left on the Bush White House over Katrina - moved early with rescue efforts. Also, the government knew within days that while no leak had been found, the potential for environmental harm existed.

From day to day, as the situation evolved from devastating fire and dramatic rescue to a possible environmental hazard, the response activities changed, too, according to documents and interviews.


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've given up waiting for answers to my questions, too. I think this "argument" is petering out because the explosion and subsequent spill have been handled effectively all along, and yet is a continuing problem with no end in sight.

Why do the gnattists continue to gnitpick the federal response instead of proposing real solutions? Because, said Willy, that's where the money is.

[ May 09, 2010, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, who doesn't want a handful of nits? [Smile]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al-

Because the hope is that by saying "YO! You SUCK!" a lot, the 20% of voters in this country who aren't firmly in one political camp or another might swing republican.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"Well, who doesn't want a handful of nits?"

Covered with Ghirardelli dark chocolate 72% cacao with a speck of sea salt and cinnamon, I do. Smothered in smug self-serving sanctimonious attitude, not so much.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sauteed in 5-S's alliteration? Sign me up!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fear this Gulf oil mess will be to the Gradual Depression what the Dust Bowl was to the Great Depression.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1