World Politics

[Hugh Januss]

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

I bet HJ is the Prez...

No, I'm not, just a reluctant member, as beneath your crackpot ideas you seem like a likeable guy, moreso than most of the rest of us here.
I think that must be what keeps TFF out of the "club" as he seems 180 degrees from your let the free market run theories most of the time.
I don't believe Goldman-Sachs is being unfairly singled out any more than I believe Valverde is, they are getting what they deserve, actually probably less that they deserve. Just because others did it too and may or may not be prosecuted does not absolve them of anything.
Industry or in fact business of any kind can never be expected to regulate itself with regard to reducing impact on the environment or fair wages and treatment of employees or even safety in the workplace. GM is not in trouble because they polluted the environment or took advantage of their workers or paid their workers too much. They are in trouble because they can't make cars that people want to buy and that don't suck. That they promised their work force huge pensions instead of giving them more modest pay increases at the time, gambling that they wouldn't live long enough to collect them, didn't help either when they did live long enough in large numbers.
The fact that the government that is suppose to regulate business is corrupt (especially since they are largely corrupted by those very corporations they are suppose to regulate) doesn't mean we should take them out of the equation. It means we need to find a way to clean them up. To a large extent this means reduce the amount of influence that the companies they are regulating can have on them.

 

[buckwheat]

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.

WhateverTF that means. You still haven't shown where I'm wrong.

Now explain to me where BP has been proven to be criminally negligent in this accident.

No, they haven't been shown to be criminally negligent, this time, yet.

You're operating under the three strikes rule. I think they do have their three.

I think the outcome will be different than you think; of course that is my opinion at the moment.

The CEO is already running for his life. He blamed Transocean, the subcontractor. This is laughable. It's BP.

What sort of regulations are you expecting the government MMS.

Well a moratoriam as Schwarzenneger just imposed is a start, until things can be assessed. I guess you're the expert. What are the risks of each type of drilling at different depths and different places. I would assume that it's more difficult to access a leak at 10,000 feet under water than 100 feet. I don't know much. Feel free to contribute your expertise.

This is what they say on the first page of their website.

Our mission is to manage the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf in an environmentally sound and safe manner.

You tell me if they've done this. I will say that Lars Herbst sounds like an insane cheerleader of drilling activities.

Their mission

MMS also conducts thousands of inspections every year to ensure operational safety and protection of the marine, coastal, and human environment.

sounds like a failure.

to put into place that will ensure the safety of these spills?

Well IYO is our National Security dependent on accessing such deep water wells? Ideally there'd be no spills but the experts don't seem too confident in their ability to contain this one.

 

[Anonymous]

[

QUOTE]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.

Up to here I completely agree with you.

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.

[/QUOTE

I vote the way I vote because it's my belief a strong economy affords the citizenry of this Country a chance to excel in whatever they choose to do. It affords the citizenry self reliance, independence and the possibility of upward mobility (for all BTW). If I thought voting a different way would result in a higher probability of the above happening then I would change my voting habits.

Even Conservative/Libertarians need clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. As I've written before, once corrupt business people are identified they are usually dealt with. Corrupt politicians are running amok in our govt right now and we know who many of them are.

I don't agree with many big business lobby/pay-off habits. Don't lump me in with them because I really hate corruption in business as well as in politics.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

He's taken it off the table because of the polical expediency. Why was it ever on the table?

I'm curious. In the years that there has been off-shore drilling, how many barrels of crude have been pumped and utlilized safely? How many barrels have been spilled and what were the outcomes? We're in the middle of a disaster with out all the facts yet you have this all figured out.

I wonder what the cost of a gallon of gas will be when off-shore drilling is severly limited or outlawed? I wonder what the impact to economic activity is going to be when the deep water gulf is shut down? Of course, other nations have no intention of stopping, but when the next disaster happens, at least it won't be our fault.

I'll ask you yet again, when and where is the next disaster going to occur? Since this stuff is so easily predictable please, for the love of your fellow man, please tell us. Perhaps it can be averted.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Even Conservative/Libertarians need clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Yeah so? The problem is it has been shown over and over again that most corporations are not opposed to dirtying other peoples water if it means a better return on the bottom line.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah so? The problem is it has been shown over and over again that most corporations are not opposed to dirtying other peoples water if it means a better return on the bottom line.

Really? I guess we should nationalize then. Get rid of the evil bottom line.

Where does other peoples water reside anyways? Because I don't want to be drinking other peoples water.

 

[buckwheat]

I vote the way I vote because it's my belief a strong economy affords the citizenry of this Country a chance to excel in whatever they choose to do. It affords the citizenry self reliance, independence and the possibility of upward mobility (for all BTW). If I thought voting a different way would result in a higher probability of the above happening then I would change my voting habits.

You evidently haven't been paying attention to the downward mobility of the vast majority of Americans since the Reagan Revolution.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Really? I guess we should nationalize then. Get rid of the evil bottom line.

Where does other peoples water reside anyways? Because I don't want to be drinking other peoples water.

Other peoples water is found in places like the Love Canal and the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and Hinkley CA among many other places. Also apparently now in the Gulf Of Mexico.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You evidently haven't been paying attention to the downward mobility of the vast majority of Americans since the Reagan Revolution.

Yeah but it is really good for the top 1%

 

[Runitout]

Really? I guess we should nationalize then. Get rid of the evil bottom line.

That is a straw man.

There is a middle ground between socialism and laissez faire capitalism.

It is called a regulated market economy. That is what every major political party in the English speaking world practises - government regulation of a market system. The only argument is about how much regulation is to be applied, to whom and when.

Name calling by either side merely adds to the vitriol, without helping to find common ground.

 

[buckwheat]

He's taken it off the table because of the polical expediency. Why was it ever on the table?

Because of our reliance on the freedom of the automobile and the great Interstate Highway System. Why didn't we listen to Carter?

I'm curious. In the years that there has been off-shore drilling, how many barrels of crude have been pumped and utlilized safely? How many barrels have been spilled and what were the outcomes? We're in the middle of a disaster with out all the facts yet you have this all figured out..

If you're so curious, prove your own case.

Uhh, I never claimed to have it all figured out. What I do have "figured out" is how to ask questions about worst case scenarios. So we have a Blow out preventer, a lot of valves, a dead man switch, 10 redundancies. What happens if every piece of technology on this apparatus fails? I saw some idjuit petroleum engineer on TV last night give the answer that they didn't expect it to fail. Ed Schultz just chuckled.

That kind of answer just is not good enough. I thought Murphy's law was pretty fundemental. So the question is, if all this stuff fails, wtf do we do? They are trying to figure it out now. Even if this thing was completely accidental, how the hell can you go ahead with plans to drill if you don't know how you're going to deal with a worst case scenario, and they don't, they're doing this on the fly and this thing could keep going till the well runs dry.

I wonder what the cost of a gallon of gas will be when off-shore drilling is severly limited or outlawed? I wonder what the impact to economic activity is going to be when the deep water gulf is shut down?

Find the links. I'm sure the AEI has some propaganda.

Of course, other nations have no intention of stopping, but when the next disaster happens, at least it won't be our fault..

Are they allowed to drill in the Gulf? I don't think so.

I'll ask you yet again, when and where is the next disaster going to occur?

I hope they shut it down before my prediction comes true, but the Arctic Ocean and Shell will be the culprit. No more Filet O Fish sandwiches or King Crabs.

Since this stuff is so easily predictable please, for the love of your fellow man, please tell us. Perhaps it can be averted.

You've heard of whistle blowers? Follow their trail. Maybe I'll go to the Greenpeace website, or the Sierra Club, or the Audabon Society.

I'm not personally in these industries so I can't answer your question but ignoring the fact that you're a wise A$s, there is an answer out there.

You don't think that mine that just blew up which had hundreds of safety violations was an accident waiting to happen?

Just like the horrendous examples of Challenger and Columbia. People knew about the problems, political pressure from people like you who ignored the risks ensured the disasters would occur.

Wake up.

 

[Anonymous]

You evidently haven't been paying attention to the downward mobility of the vast majority of Americans since the Reagan Revolution.

Come to think of it, the Country was much better off under your boy Carter.

 

[Anonymous]

That is a straw man.

There is a middle ground between socialism and laissez faire capitalism.

It is called a regulated market economy. That is what every major political party in the English speaking world practises - government regulation of a market system. The only argument is about how much regulation is to be applied, to whom and when.

Name calling by either side merely adds to the vitriol, without helping to find common ground.

Uh, no.

I illustrated ubsurdity by being ubsurd. It was written "The problem is it has been shown over and over again that most corporations are not opposed to dirtying other peoples water if it means a better return on the bottom line.", the key word here being "most", which is ubsurd.

But thanks for the drive by.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Uh, no.

I illustrated ubsurdity by being ubsurd. It was written "The problem is it has been shown over and over again that most corporations are not opposed to dirtying other peoples water if it means a better return on the bottom line.", the key word here being "most", which is ubsurd.

But thanks for the drive by.

I'm sorry you're right I should have said all. What does ubsurd mean anyway?

 

[Anonymous]

Because of our reliance on the freedom of the automobile and the great Interstate Highway System. Why didn't we listen to Carter?


If you're so curious, prove your own case.

Uhh, I never claimed to have it all figured out. What I do have "figured out" is how to ask questions about worst case scenarios. So we have a Blow out preventer, a lot of valves, a dead man switch, 10 redundancies. What happens if every piece of technology on this apparatus fails? I saw some idjuit petroleum engineer on TV last night give the answer that they didn't expect it to fail. Ed Schultz just chuckled.

That kind of answer just is not good enough. I thought Murphy's law was pretty fundemental. So the question is, if all this stuff fails, wtf do we do? They are trying to figure it out now. Even if this thing was completely accidental, how the hell can you go ahead with plans to drill if you don't know how you're going to deal with a worst case scenario, and they don't, they're doing this on the fly and this thing could keep going till the well runs dry.




Find the links. I'm sure the AEI has some propaganda.



Are they allowed to drill in the Gulf? I don't think so.



I hope they shut it down before my prediction comes true, but the Arctic Ocean and Shell will be the culprit. No more Filet O Fish sandwiches or King Crabs.



You've heard of whistle blowers? Follow their trail. Maybe I'll go to the Greenpeace website, or the Sierra Club, or the Audabon Society.

I'm not personally in these industries so I can't answer your question but ignoring the fact that you're a wise A$s, there is an answer out there.

You don't think that mine that just blew up which had hundreds of safety violations was an accident waiting to happen?

Just like the horrendous examples of Challenger and Columbia. People knew about the problems, political pressure from people like you who ignored the risks ensured the disasters would occur.

Wake up.

I dunno. Runnaway inflation, catastrophic interest rates, economic devastation... do you want me to go on?

Political pressure from people like me? That's news. Was I a Senator? I always wanted to be a Senator...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry you're right I should have said all. What does ubsurd mean anyway?

Prolly make more sense if I spelled correctly. Always been a weakness...

 

[Anonymous]

Hey fellas,

I seem to have done enough damage to this thread and I don't think my presence here is adding anything.

So have fun and somebody PM me when everyone remaining figures it all out.

Cheers.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hey fellas,

I seem to have done enough damage to this thread and I don't think my presence here is adding anything.

So have fun and somebody PM me when everyone remaining figures it all out.

Cheers.

No need, I've already got it figured out.

 

[buckwheat]

Yeah but it is really good for the top 1%

BTW, I know I'm nuts but you guys are going to need some people to run into the machine guns.

 

[buckwheat]

Come to think of it, the Country was much better off under your boy Carter.

Yes, we were much better off. It's always better to know the truth than to be fed illusions.

It's just a fact that if you tell the truth you're a marked man.

Flatterers such as Reagan do much better in popularity contests.

 

[buckwheat]

Political pressure from people like me? That's news. Was I a Senator? I always wanted to be a Senator...

People like you with a lot of power.

Frightening combination.

 

[patricknd]

No, I'm not, just a reluctant member, as beneath your crackpot ideas you seem like a likeable guy, moreso than most of the rest of us here.
I think that must be what keeps TFF out of the "club" as he seems 180 degrees from your let the free market run theories most of the time.
I don't believe Goldman-Sachs is being unfairly singled out any more than I believe Valverde is, they are getting what they deserve, actually probably less that they deserve. Just because others did it too and may or may not be prosecuted does not absolve them of anything.
Industry or in fact business of any kind can never be expected to regulate itself with regard to reducing impact on the environment or fair wages and treatment of employees or even safety in the workplace. GM is not in trouble because they polluted the environment or took advantage of their workers or paid their workers too much. They are in trouble because they can't make cars that people want to buy and that don't suck. That they promised their work force huge pensions instead of giving them more modest pay increases at the time, gambling that they wouldn't live long enough to collect them, didn't help either when they did live long enough in large numbers.
The fact that the government that is suppose to regulate business is corrupt (especially since they are largely corrupted by those very corporations they are suppose to regulate) doesn't mean we should take them out of the equation. It means we need to find a way to clean them up. To a large extent this means reduce the amount of influence that the companies they are regulating can have on them.

so do you only provide your employees with a fair wage, safe work place etc. because you are forced to do so?

 

[Oncearunner8]

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.

TFF -There is some points I do not agree with 100%,,,,,,,,,,,, but the fact is your post is on the money. I wonder the economic impact for the region overall? My personal feelings aside,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this is a environmental disaster of epic proportions. FuhhhhhCK the Challenger and the dude who keeps insisting .....knocking that shizzzit.

I feel bad that somehow gave the impression --- I think that President Obama and his admin are as negligent as President Bush and his admin. I was only trying to point out that he Fed's had information and resources available before they acted. That was my point.

Today I heard or yesterday that the talk show's have sort-a latched on to the fact that the administration took too long to act. I agree with that in some fashion. I do not think they turned their backs but I think they left it up to BP far long enough. I know and as someone else on this message board knows that BP was in cya mode from day 2. I said as much in a previous post. The well was going to bleed no matter what and the initial Coast Guard statement was dumb at best. There was sanding / bridging of the well at that time. Things needed a day to settle. Then they should have made the assessment.

If you guys give a rats *** about “who” to blame then you would be looking into the direction of the BOP manufacture and the cementing contractor. I know both companies.

Anyhow as of tomorrow the "fix" will be in route to the wellhead and that should be in place by the weekend. Once that is done and the flow is contained, we can move forward with the blame.

BP and the three strikes according TWO buhhwhyte, well let’s just watch the next meltdown.

Hey scribe .....do you think this topic has a middle???? I am leaning towards NO.

 

[ChrisE]

In the midst of this big debate those on the left and right need to keep one thing in mind.

It is not in a certain industry's best interest to bankrupt the working class or alientate them. Ultimately that is the client. BP is not profiting from this, of course.

You have to weigh that against regulation. The problem is that the client is the employee in business, where capitalism in itself is inherent upon driving down the cost of doing business to increase profit. Which in turn limits the power of the entity that buys it's product. It's a circle jerk.

There is too much misery in society to let this all work out. Ultimately, I believe it would all work out, which is the basis of laisez faire capitalism, but we would be dead many times over. Regulation keeps things in check, IMO. Where that line in the sand is I'm still trying to figure out.....I admit that.

You guys make my head hurt. After many beers tonite, I'm going to bed. Later.

 

[Hugh Januss]

so do you only provide your employees with a fair wage, safe work place etc. because you are forced to do so?

Damn right.