World Politics

[Anonymous]

Once again you do not see the forest through the trees, because of your ideological position.

The point I was making wasn't about creating a system in which no accidents ever occur, which of course is an impossible goal. Mine was simply concerned with eliminating, as much as is humanly possible, that margin of error caused by the conflict of interests between profit and proper mainatainance and upkeep costs. And this is government's job and business' responsibility. In the specific cases I cited, such a conflict of interests led to the disasters.

I won't be at all surprized when the so called equipment failure in the BP disaster is determined to have merely been a cynical alibi for what in reality was criminal negligence, as these things usually go. We will wait and see.

It is obvious, however, that your ideological world view compels you to at times defend the undefendable, and thus to not see the bad where the bad exists, whereas it should be about placing those with great responsibility and power under the most rutheless scrutiny and to be unwavering in seeing justice done by bringing the necessary pressure to bear on those in power to do their job and those making the profit to not let their business interests prevent themselves from responsible behavior in all the business aspects and, vice versa, to not allow the business interests to determine all the political aspects andsoforth. Of course they always do I harbor no illusions about this, however, in such aweful circumstances we must never justify them. In this case mechanical failure itself isn't really the issue since it is just a fact; but why such mechanical failure took place and under which circumstances has such mechanical failure taken place, because it is naturally unacceptable "unacceptable" underlined that such mechanical failure really did take place when it should absolutely have never taken place and under the specific circumstances that it did which naturally brings under scrutiny every business practice and each political determinant that led to it happening, when they should have ensured just the opposite, due to the catastrophic consequences that have resulted in the horrible befouling of a vast marine environment off the coast of Louisiana caused by the profit making operation of drilling for oil. On the other hand if it is proven that everyone behaved responsibly as they should have, which is almost never the case especially where large profits and political determinents are concerned, then we can just hope that it won't happen again.

Though, I repeat, the later scenario is usually the one most accepted initially, when not immediatly from the start, by either naive fools or else cynical ideologues who always jump to defend profit and the political determinants behind the business practices and usually out of convenience sake because they coincide with a base world view.

Fair enough.

I have been tough on those I think are responsible for the financial disaster, both public and private. What I find disturbing is, at least for the financial disaster, those in govt who have had a hand in the collapse are still in govt with as much or more power to effect policy than before. Who's regulating the regulators?

If BP is found to have been cutting corners then throw the book at them. I don't discount that possibility. As you say, we will see.

I distrust govt more than I distrust business. I suppose this will put me in a position to question govt officials/regulators as much the private business person. At least as regulations go, that is our principal difference.

 

[rhubroma]

Fair enough.

I have been tough on those I think are responsible for the financial disaster, both public and private. What I find disturbing is, at least for the financial disaster, those in govt who have had a hand in the collapse are still in govt with as much or more power to effect policy than before. Who's regulating the regulators?

If BP is found to have been cutting corners then throw the book at them. I don't discount that possibility. As you say, we will see.

I distrust govt more than I distrust business. I suppose this will put me in a position to question govt officials/regulators as much the private business person. At least as regulations go, that is our principal difference.

I'd say I distrust business as much as government. That's because the distinction between the two today has become very tenuous.

 

[buckwheat]

It really makes me wish Challenger had never blown up...

Why? Because your ego can't handle being proven wrong?

I wish Challenger had never blown up because lives were lost.

This ChrisE brings up the issue to prove some point which he entirely failed to do. It just illustrated my position that these tragedies were both predictable and preventable.

(Hence we need stricter black and white regulations where very small known probabilities can cause huge catastrophes. Yes, black and white, so people like you and our Repug friends have as little room to equivocate or squirm out of responsibility as possible.)

He then goes to some fallback position, something about how cultures change. Well the tragedy continued because the culture didn't change and another wholly predictable and preventable tragedy occurred because the heat shields were damaged on the Columbia which had happened on many previous missions. Again NASA rolled the dice and changed the probabilities of a future disaster because they had had a decent string of good luck.

Look up BP's history. A continuing history of negligent criminal activity in which lives were lost and the environment damaged, but according to ChrisE things have changed.

I'm not an expert on this and neither are you.

My qualities here are that I can read, am logical, can admit when I'm wrong, and I have a curiosity outside my bubble of ignorance which you clearly lack. Try google and reading, and don't get your ego hurt when you learn something you didn't know before.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say I distrust business as much as government. That's because the distinction between the two today has become very tenuous.

And I would say the same thing because the actual process of government and business is so intertwined that it is a singular system, and not only because of regulation, but also because business is constantly seeking to influence government for its benefit by funding elections and lobbying. There is no public vs private in my estimation, and the corruption is rampant throughout. Thinking one is to be trusted over the other is fanciful and short sighted

 

[Oncearunner8]

Why? Because your ego can't handle being proven wrong?

I wish Challenger had never blown up because lives were lost.

This ChrisE brings up the issue to prove some point which he entirely failed to do. It just illustrated my position that these tragedies were both predictable and preventable.

(Hence we need stricter black and white regulations where very small known probabilities can cause huge catastrophes. Yes, black and white, so people like you and our Repug friends have as little room to equivocate or squirm out of responsibility as possible.)

He then goes to some fallback position, something about how cultures change. Well the tragedy continued because the culture didn't change and another wholly predictable and preventable tragedy occurred because the heat shields were damaged on the Columbia which had happened on many previous missions. Again NASA rolled the dice and changed the probabilities of a future disaster because they had had a decent string of good luck.

Look up BP's history. A continuing history of negligent criminal activity in which lives were lost and the environment damaged, but according to ChrisE things have changed.

I'm not an expert on this and neither are you.

My qualities here are that I can read, am logical, can admit when I'm wrong, and I have a curiosity outside my bubble of ignorance which you clearly lack. Try google and reading, and don't get your ego hurt when you learn something you didn't know before.

I guess folks may be giving into you because you have so much energy to make posts. That does not necessarily mean your correct but it does mean you are a a$$hat-fishsimp.

 

[buckwheat]

You have so much energy. If we could just harness that energy.....

So tell me again your point with the Challenger, that things change?

So, bottom line, your arguments had no validity whatsoever.

And you blame me because you spout piffle, are obstinate in defending your hot air, and I have to rebut it or it stands.

 

[buckwheat]

I guess folks may be giving into you because you have so much energy to make posts. That does not necessarily mean your correct but it does mean you are a a$$hat-fishsimp.

I have energy to make my points airtight, so I'm an as$hat? The reasoning ability of a toaster! You liked that one! Now you get to wear it.

BTW, where are people, "giving in to me."

Rather than name call, tell me where I was wrong.

Where these things have a past history that render them foreseeable and preventable?

The failed history of the shuttle program which someone incorrectly used to try to undermine my point which in fact proves my point and the more you scrutinze that example, the stronger my point gets?

The criminally negligent history of BP?

The need for tougher regulations with real penalties, to prevent, minimize, or at worst, contain these tragedies.

Thinking is proving harder for you than name calling, eh?

 

[rhubroma]

And I would say the same thing because the actual process of government and business is so intertwined that it is a singular system, and not only because of regulation, but also because business is constantly seeking to influence government for its benefit by funding elections and lobbying. There is no public vs private in my estimation, and the corruption is rampant throughout. Thinking one is to be trusted over the other is fanciful and short sighted

And it is system from which there's no turning back now! Initially we try to recoil from it, but we can't, then we try to defy it, this too is useless, and finally we realize that the only possible solution for how this world should be changed is by first radically destroying it, by virtually annihilating it, and then restoring it in a form we find tolerable, as a completely new world--though I can't say how this is to be done, only that the world must be annihilated before it's restored, since it is impossible to renew it without first annihilating it.

 

[buckwheat]

I guess folks may be giving into you because you have so much energy to make posts. That does not necessarily mean your correct but it does mean you are a a$$hat-fishsimp.

Boo hooo, Daddy, he has more energy than I do. Make him stop!

To complain about this on of all places, a cycling forum.

Make him slow down.... I can't keep up....

 

[buckwheat]

And it is system from which there's no turning back now! Initially we try to recoil from it, but we can't, then we try to defy it, this too is useless, and finally we realize that the only possible solution for how this world should be changed is by first radically destroying it, by virtually annihilating it, and then restoring it in a form we find tolerable, as a completely new world--though I can't say how this is to be done, only that the world must be annihilated before it's restored, since it is impossible to renew it without first annihilating it.

Damn you're a smart guy. Thanks.


......it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government...........

 

[Anonymous]

And I would say the same thing because the actual process of government and business is so intertwined that it is a singular system, and not only because of regulation, but also because business is constantly seeking to influence government for its benefit by funding elections and lobbying. There is no public vs private in my estimation, and the corruption is rampant throughout. Thinking one is to be trusted over the other is fanciful and short sighted

Well, I'm thinking Goldman would have expected better from the Obama admin for their $1,000,000 contribution and we shall see how much preferential treatment BP gets for their $500K.

It appears to me as the Federal govt weilds a much larger hammer than any industry and certainly any one company.

I don't believe this to be shortsighted.

 

[buckwheat]

It appears to me as the Federal govt weilds a much larger hammer than any industry and certainly any one company.

Yes but there are checks and balances in effect for the govt but the only restraint on industry is the bottom line.

The government does have much greater power but also much greater responsibility.

BTW, you and I are part of the government and there are mechanisms in effect to change the government which are being watered down by people from the right side of the equation.

 

[Oncearunner8]

I have energy to make my points airtight, so I'm an as$hat? The reasoning ability of a toaster! You liked that one! Now you get to wear it.

BTW, where are people, "giving in to me."

Rather than name call, tell me where I was wrong.

Where these things have a past history that render them foreseeable and preventable?

The failed history of the shuttle program which someone incorrectly used to try to undermine my point which in fact proves my point and the more you scrutinze that example, the stronger my point gets?

The criminally negligent history of BP?

The need for tougher regulations with real penalties, to prevent, minimize, or at worst, contain these tragedies.

Thinking is proving harder for you than name calling, eh?

I was not the first to call you a name, but I did do it. I wanted to watch an epic meltdown. I guess the sirens are going off in your area again.

Now explain to me where BP has been proven to be criminally negligent in this accident. I think the outcome will be different than you think; of course that is my opinion at the moment.

What sort of regulations are you expecting the government MMS to put into place that will ensure the safety of these spills?

 

[scribe]

I've lost track of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, in this thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I'm thinking Goldman would have expected better from the Obama admin for their $1,000,000 contribution and we shall see how much preferential treatment BP gets for their $500K.

It appears to me as the Federal govt weilds a much larger hammer than any industry and certainly any one company.

I don't believe this to be shortsighted.

Its funny, I just listened to some right winged nutjob with a book titled "Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America" It seems to me that BP, and the other companies involved with the oil rig just stole the freedom of MANY people on the Gulf Coast, and will surely bankrupt many. Regardless of the fact that I am sure they did not want to do so, they did. Fact.

As to the statement of government and the hammer it wields versus industry, it would be convenient if your example were only used in relation to a single company, but the reality is that the combined effort of business works against what is best for the populace in many instances, and is far from being benevolent. As Hugh said, Mr Galt is a fictional character. It is clear that you trust the corruption of the members of business in that system more than that of the members of government in that system. Fine, I can accept that. I just don't agree that government is any more influential and destructive because of their corruption than is business. I also believe that both provide good for our society in many ways. If you took away one of those parts, the other would become much too powerful. As it stands, it is a system rife with corruption, inefficiency, and undue influence by a minority of people. Hey, it is all we have.

Because the FACT is that there is undue influence wielded by a minority of people in our country, and most work on the side of business...because they fund the campaigns. Just ask the guys at the table who helped the Bush administration set energy policy...you know, the people who **** Cheney refused to name and most certainly included men from Enron. The facts are not in your favor here.

 

[Anonymous]

I have energy to make my points airtight, so I'm an as$hat? The reasoning ability of a toaster! You liked that one! Now you get to wear it.

BTW, where are people, "giving in to me."

Rather than name call, tell me where I was wrong.

Where these things have a past history that render them foreseeable and preventable?

The failed history of the shuttle program which someone incorrectly used to try to undermine my point which in fact proves my point and the more you scrutinze that example, the stronger my point gets?

The criminally negligent history of BP?



The need for tougher regulations with real penalties, to prevent, minimize, or at worst, contain these tragedies.

Thinking is proving harder for you than name calling, eh?

Let's review.

This is what was written regarding the Challenger;

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart. Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

This was the point:

When a system is put in place in an industry it does not automatically have all mechanisms in place to thwart all possible scenarios. Nobody is that smart.

This was the bad analogy:

Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift.

Go'ver it as many times as you'd like.

 

[Anonymous]

Its funny, I just listened to some right winged nutjob with a book titled "Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America" It seems to me that BP, and the other companies involved with the oil rig just stole the freedom of MANY people on the Gulf Coast, and will surely bankrupt many. Regardless of the fact that I am sure they did not want to do so, they did. Fact.

As to the statement of government and the hammer it wields versus industry, it would be convenient if your example were only used in relation to a single company, but the reality is that the combined effort of business works against what is best for the populace in many instances, and is far from being benevolent. As Hugh said, Mr Galt is a fictional character. It is clear that you trust the corruption of the members of business in that system more than that of the members of government in that system. Fine, I can accept that. I just don't agree that government is any more influential and destructive because of their corruption than is business. I also believe that both provide good for our society in many ways. If you took away one of those parts, the other would become much too powerful. As it stands, it is a system rife with corruption, inefficiency, and undue influence by a minority of people. Hey, it is all we have.

Because the FACT is that there is undue influence wielded by a minority of people in our country, and most work on the side of business...because they fund the campaigns. Just ask the guys at the table who helped the Bush administration set energy policy...you know, the people who **** Cheney refused to name and most certainly included men from Enron. The facts are not in your favor here.

The minority are having undue influence. I completely agree.

At the end of the day (unless there is a monopoly) business must have a market for the purchase of their goods and services. If, through their practices, they destroy their market then they die (GM for example).

Politicians, on the other hand, only need not to destroy the re-electability of the individual until and unless this govt is 'annihilated' as is Rhub's solution.

This is an interesting take... from the NY Times no less.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/From-Buffett-ThoughtOut-nytimes-1724696747.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

"On Sunday, Mr. Buffett said that the case against Goldman seemed to be based only on hindsight.

“It’s very strange to say, at the end of the transaction, that if the other guy is smarter than you, that you have been defrauded,” he said. “It seems to me that that’s what they are saying.”

Indeed, many securities lawyers have said from the start that the case against Goldman might be hard for the S.E.C. to win, for many of the reasons spelled out by Mr. Buffett in his defense of Goldman."

"With so many easy targets of the financial crisis — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, A.I.G., Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers — it does seem odd that the government, and the public, has chosen to vilify one of only a couple of firms that made fewer mistakes than the rest.

Still, the chorus of Goldman opponents has become so loud that, predictably, some people have called for Mr. Blankfein’s head.

On that subject, Charles Munger, Mr. Buffett’s vocal sidekick and vice chairman, put it bluntly: “There are plenty of C.E.O.’s I’d like to see gone in America. Lloyd Blankfein isn’t one of them.”


Govt dropping the hammer on Goldman, rightly or wrongly. I'm thinking this is a great example of the minority (a few in govt) having serious influence. Undue? I dunno.

 

[Anonymous]

The minority are having undue influence. I completely agree.

At the end of the day (unless there is a monopoly) business must have a market for the purchase of their goods and services. If, through their practices, they destroy their market then they die (GM for example).

Politicians, on the other hand, only need not to destroy the re-electability of the individual until and unless this govt is 'annihilated' as is Rhub's solution.

This is an interesting take... from the NY Times no less.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/From-Buffett-ThoughtOut-nytimes-1724696747.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

"On Sunday, Mr. Buffett said that the case against Goldman seemed to be based only on hindsight.

“It’s very strange to say, at the end of the transaction, that if the other guy is smarter than you, that you have been defrauded,” he said. “It seems to me that that’s what they are saying.”

Indeed, many securities lawyers have said from the start that the case against Goldman might be hard for the S.E.C. to win, for many of the reasons spelled out by Mr. Buffett in his defense of Goldman."

"With so many easy targets of the financial crisis — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, A.I.G., Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers — it does seem odd that the government, and the public, has chosen to vilify one of only a couple of firms that made fewer mistakes than the rest.

Still, the chorus of Goldman opponents has become so loud that, predictably, some people have called for Mr. Blankfein’s head.

On that subject, Charles Munger, Mr. Buffett’s vocal sidekick and vice chairman, put it bluntly: “There are plenty of C.E.O.’s I’d like to see gone in America. Lloyd Blankfein isn’t one of them.”


Govt dropping the hammer on Goldman, rightly or wrongly. I'm thinking this is a great example of the minority (a few in govt) having serious influence. Undue? I dunno.

But they don't because at the end of the day, business will receive regulations that are luke warm at best, and only mildly different from the regulations the banking industry currently faces. It is a show trial and meant for window dressing. Just as in business, someone is going to have to pay for the mistakes of many. Are they a scape goat? To an extent, surely they are. Are they just an unfortunate player in a market gone bad as Mr Buffett suggests? I mean, the man owns a stake in the company, what do you expect he will say? Looking at their practices in regards to selling products that they knew were junk, even they say they were. On top of that, they were hedging their bets against it at the same time. Is it the worst excess in the entire scheme of things, hardly. Sucks for them is all I can say. Hey, I hear Republican after Republican bemoan the fact that the Obama administration has members of the administration who are former Goldman employees. Now they want to bemoan taking the ones still at the company to task?

As always with you and I, I don't think we are that far apart. Its why I don't join in the "Beat on Scott" fan club.

On a side note, I just found a Harvard study that showed that 91% of the subprime loans were done by companies that were outside of the requirements of CRA because they were not deposit taking institutions. The greatest responsibility for this crisis is on the shoulders of the private companies who engaged in the market for subprime loans. I have been saying this all along. I just wish people knew that, but unfortunately, they choose to be "educated" by the television news media. Fox news being the worst offender in that particular distortion and out right fabrication of facts.

 

[Anonymous]

Let's review.

This is what was written regarding the Challenger;



This was the point:



This was the bad analogy:




Go'ver it as many times as you'd like.

I don't know why you bother with him. Put him on ignore like me, and save yourself the frustration of fighting with a child.

 

[Anonymous]

But they don't because at the end of the day, business will receive regulations that are luke warm at best, and only mildly different from the regulations the banking industry currently faces. It is a show trial and meant for window dressing. Just as in business, someone is going to have to pay for the mistakes of many. Are they a scape goat? To an extent, surely they are. Are they just an unfortunate player in a market gone bad as Mr Buffett suggests? I mean, the man owns a stake in the company, what do you expect he will say? Looking at their practices in regards to selling products that they knew were junk, even they say they were. On top of that, they were hedging their bets against it at the same time. Is it the worst excess in the entire scheme of things, hardly. Sucks for them is all I can say. Hey, I hear Republican after Republican bemoan the fact that the Obama administration has members of the administration who are former Goldman employees. Now they want to bemoan taking the ones still at the company to task?

As always with you and I, I don't think we are that far apart. Its why I don't join in the "Beat on Scott" fan club.

On a side note, I just found a Harvard study that showed that 91% of the subprime loans were done by companies that were outside of the requirements of CRA because they were not deposit taking institutions. The greatest responsibility for this crisis is on the shoulders of the private companies who engaged in the market for subprime loans. I have been saying this all along. I just wish people knew that, but unfortunately, they choose to be "educated" by the television news media. Fox news being the worst offender in that particular distortion and out right fabrication of facts.

There's a fan club? How cool is that?

I bet HJ is the Prez...

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know why you bother with him. Put him on ignore like me, and save yourself the frustration of fighting with a child.

Yeah... I know.

But, as with most very left liberals, they always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Besides, somebody has to defend ChrisE.

 

[ChrisE]

Yeah... I know.

But, as with most very left liberals, they always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Besides, somebody has to defend ChrisE.

Yeah, and you didn't do a very good job at it explaining how I was wrong upthread. I know what I meant; thanks for trying.

Think of the o-ring issue on Challenger in 86, it's the same concept. It took a catastrophe before somebody said "Oh shyt, maybe we should...". You get my drift

The "maybe we should...." does not have to be technical.....it can be cultural as well. My overall point, if I must say so again, is that changes result when bad things happen. We are talking humans here making decisions, not machines.

As TFF alluded to upthread, humans must look at probability of an occurance vs the outcome. You must be that way in a competitive business or you cannot compete.

That is the black and white issue, but there are outside pressures as well that could factor into real time decisions. That is cultural, and alot of times it takes a catastrophe to change that. Is that "right"? No, and people like buckwheat can raise all the hell they want but that is human. If people have a problem with that they need to discuss it with Dr. Phil instead of arguing with me about it here.

Moving on, it is interesting you are arguing here about distrust of govt vs business, and how you are for regulations that make sense. Many of the laws and regulations in effect are the result of intense pro-business lobbying adn wingnut politicians. Look at the a$$clowns even now clamoring for more offshore drilling while this is going on, prior to fixing the problem to lessen the probability of it happening again. It boggles the mind.

The regulations that "don't make sense" more times than not are the result of your voting patterns. If you thought real hard about it you would probably be a pretty conflicted person inside about why you vote the way you do. That is why you don't think alot about it.

 

[buckwheat]

Yeah, and you didn't do a very good job at it explaining how I was wrong upthread. I know what I meant; thanks for trying..

First of all, let's get back on the subject the schizophrenia of one of the posters from the left coast.

The "maybe we should...." does not have to be technical.....it can be cultural as well. My overall point, if I must say so again, is that changes result when bad things happen. We are talking humans here making decisions, not machines. ..

But Chris, changes in the space shuttle program, particularly the culture did not happen after the first disaster. Almost the same exact culture with the same exact outlook persisted. When the the heat resistant tiles came off the vehicle caused by the foam falling, it was overlooked because they got away with it. It was a known risk with potentially catastrophic consequences and because they got away with it NASA managers raised the possibility of disaster to astronomical odds rather than the 1 in 200 odds the engineers thought was realistic. This is all a matter of public record.

Looking back at BP they have rolled and are rolling the dice even more.

As TFF alluded to upthread, humans must look at probability of an occurance vs the outcome. You must be that way in a competitive business or you cannot compete...

Yes that's obvious but he's also tending to shift the blame away from these guys even after it's well known that they have played fast and loose with safety and the environment before.

That is the black and white issue, but there are outside pressures as well that could factor into real time decisions. That is cultural, and alot of times it takes a catastrophe to change that. Is that "right"? No, and people like buckwheat can raise all the hell they want but that is human. If people have a problem with that they need to discuss it with Dr. Phil instead of arguing with me about it here.

Moving on, it is interesting you are arguing here about distrust of govt vs business, and how you are for regulations that make sense. Many of the laws and regulations in effect are the result of intense pro-business lobbying adn wingnut politicians. Look at the a$$clowns even now clamoring for more offshore drilling while this is going on, prior to fixing the problem to lessen the probability of it happening again. It boggles the mind. ...

Look, as Janus pointed out we probably agree more than we disagree but the point that this is some kind of novel situation that couldn't be foreseen and prevented is just completely unfounded.

A Californian on the thread may be in the A$$clown category you are referring to and the TFF guy is too conciliatory to stop him.

 

[buckwheat]

I don't know why you bother with him. Put him on ignore like me, and save yourself the frustration of fighting with a child.

The frustration is that someone is calling you on your supposed "expert" opinion with facts.

I am relentless too but Fcuk it. I've seen you get snippy with people on here but when you get completely outflanked by someone who calls you on your bs it's unfair?

Whatever dude. You're apparently the type of person to let someone get away with murder so you don't have to rock the boat, make nice, and be friends.


Good luck.

 

[buckwheat]

Let's review.

This is what was written regarding the Challenger;



This was the point:



This was the bad analogy:




Go'ver it as many times as you'd like.

I can go over it a million times but you're not familiar with the facts and the history of many of these industrial accidents.

In this case it is obviously more difficult to contain a leak the farther it is under the water.

This was a known risk. There was talk they could have had added redundancy for a half a million dollars.

Money is usually at the bottom of these things and usually not all that much.

Why the heck do you think Schwarzenneger took it off the table?

Answer: because the risk isn't worth the benefits, even if the risk is tiny, and do you thing you're going to get an honest risk assessment from Shell, Exxon or BP. I know you trust them more than government.

You do realize that Shell has plans to start drilling in Arctic Ocean through ice and in deeper water and if something goes wrong there this Gulf spill is going to look like child's play.

Don't go saying that these things (risks) aren't easily predictable and foreseeable.