FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama to Gulf relief efforts: Stop!





jmi256
With the Gulf facing the largest ecological disaster in the history of the US, why would Obama force any effort to minimize the damage to stop for any amount of time? Obama’s handling and response to the disaster just doesn’t make sense. I thought he was supposed to be competent?


Quote:
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging
Nungesser Pleads With President To Allow Work To Continue


NEW ORLEANS -- The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.

The California dredge located off the Chandelier Islands has pumped more than 50,000 cubic yards of material daily to create a sand berm, according to Plaquemines Parish officials.

Nungesser's letter includes an emotional plea to the president.

"Please don't let them shut this dredge down," he wrote. "This requires your immediate attention!"

Source = http://www.wdsu.com/news/23997498/detail.html
deanhills
Wish people would cooperate better. And yes, perhaps you are right. Getting people to rally together propably starts at the top. Difficult situation however. Like the embargo on drilling in the Gulf. Tough decisions to make. I really feel for Louisiana.
Bikerman
What has this got to do with Obama?
It is a local spat between a State Representative politician and a local parish president...
http://www.wdsu.com/news/23821677/detail.html

Is Obama now to be held directly responsible for every action by a democrat politician?
Surely not - one would hope he is concentrating on the big picture rather than trying to mico-manage a few sandbanks...
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
What has this got to do with Obama?
It is a local spat between a State Representative politician and a local parish president...
http://www.wdsu.com/news/23821677/detail.html

Is Obama now to be held directly responsible for every action by a democrat politician?
Surely not - one would hope he is concentrating on the big picture rather than trying to mico-manage a few sandbanks...


Maybe you missed this from the story:
Quote:
The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.


Obama is the head of the federal government and responsible for the federal response to the disaster. He himself has said he is responsible and would “spare no resource to clean up whatever damage is caused.” And that his “focus is now on a fully coordinated, relentless response effort to stop the leak and prevent more damage to the Gulf.” Apparently, that means halting efforts to minimize damage. At least he made a speech. That’ll really help. /sarcasm

Bikerman
It is still a no-story. You have some chap called Billy Nungesser who likes shouting the odds. The state screw up a dredging operation. They are given time to sort it but they don't. The dredging does more harm than good and is stopped...whoopie dooo...
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
It is still a no-story. You have some chap called Billy Nungesser who likes shouting the odds. The state screw up a dredging operation. They are given time to sort it but they don't. The dedging does more harm than good and is stopped...whoopie dooo...


Yeah, it's only the Gulf. We probably won't be needing that.... Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
I don't believe for a minute that there is imminent danger caused by this ban...take that as a prediction and we'll see over the next weeks.

I'm quite amazed that nobody has yet actually looked at the origins of this crisis properly. It didn't just *happen* - treaties were signed, agreements made, licenses granted, etc
Why were the oil companies effectively left to regulate themselves? Ah, that would be the 2005 Cheney agreement. Why were they drilling in the Gulf? Ahh that would be the 2008 Bush executive order to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts - just before he left office.....

Sling blame at Obama if you must, but there is more to this story than a couple of sandbanks...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19776
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
I don't believe for a minute that there is imminent danger caused by this ban...take that as a prediction and we'll see over the next weeks.

I'm quite amazed that nobody has yet actually looked at the origins of this crisis properly. It didn't just *happen* - treaties were signed, agreements made, licenses granted, etc
Why were the oil companies effectively left to regulate themselves? Ah, that would be the 2005 Cheney agreement. Why were they drilling in the Gulf? Ahh that would be the 2008 Bush executive order to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts - just before he left office.....

Sling blame at Obama if you must, but there is more to this story than a couple of sandbanks...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19776


Remember also the controversy over Cheney's remaking of the US energy policy, with all the closed-door meetings with big oil officials from BP. Now we know the results of letting these people run the US gov't. Keep the Repubs out of federal office for the rest of this century, at least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842_pf.html


Quote:

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force


By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.


Specifically, the meetings between Cheney and big Oil killed any regulations calling for safety devices that could have prevented this disaster.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
Quote:


The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.


http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1-/13409-the-bush-cheney-gulf-coast-oil-spill-of-2010.html

Quote:
oil companies persuaded the Bush-Cheney administration that expensive security measures were not required, even for drilling in deep oceanic waters. For example, Minerals Management Service (MMS), decided not to require oil companies to install a remote-control oil blowout preventer on their deep-sea oil drilling rigs, i.e. an acoustic blow off valve that immediately chokes off the flow of oil in an emergency. Even though they are expensive, (they cost $500,000 each), most offshore oil rigs in other countries—in Norway and in Brazil for example, but not in the U.S. or the U.K— have such a switch installed for cutting off the flow of oil in an emergency by closing a valve located on the ocean floor.


Quote:
No such emergency switch was available on April 20, 2010, when BP's 18,000-foot-drilling-deep floating oil rig blew up, a catastrophe that killed eleven workers, injured many others, and which has spewed, so far, as much as 100 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (some 2,400,000 barrels, or nearly ten oil tankers the size of the Exxon Valdez). The British-American BP company, seemingly, had cut cornersin order to take advantage of the lax regulatory environment.

However, contrary to the damage done by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a natural event, the 2010 Gulf oil spill is a man-made disaster (just as, by the way, the 2003 Iraq war and the 2007-08 financial crisis were also man-made disasters). It could have been prevented if the Bush-Cheney administration had not removed the regulations mandating basic safety procedures in oil drilling, especially for offshore drilling.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I don't believe for a minute that there is imminent danger caused by this ban...take that as a prediction and we'll see over the next weeks.

I'm quite amazed that nobody has yet actually looked at the origins of this crisis properly. It didn't just *happen* - treaties were signed, agreements made, licenses granted, etc
Why were the oil companies effectively left to regulate themselves? Ah, that would be the 2005 Cheney agreement. Why were they drilling in the Gulf? Ahh that would be the 2008 Bush executive order to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts - just before he left office.....

Sling blame at Obama if you must, but there is more to this story than a couple of sandbanks...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19776


LOL. Typical “Blame Bush” mentality from the left, never accepting their own responsibility. If Executive Orders were the culprit and such a danger, in his year and a half, I’m sure Obama would have gotten around to rescinding those, right? Oh, that’s right he didn’t. In fact Obama endorsed [/i]more[/i] offshore drilling days before the disaster and called drilling “absolutely safe.”




And never mind that Obama was the largest recipient money from his friends at BP during the presidential campaign:
Quote:
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

POLITICO (Washington) - While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should "not be used inappropriately" to halt Obama's push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP's largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

"Campaign contributions, from energy companies or from environmental groups, have absolutely no impact on Sen. Landrieu's policy agenda or her response to this unprecedented disaster in the Gulf," said Landrieu spokesman Aaron Saunders. "The senator is proud of the broad coalition she's built since her first day in the Senate to address the energy and environmental challenges in Louisiana and in the nation. This disaster only makes the effort to promote and save Louisiana's coast all that more important."

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu's campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP's America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

"I mean, just the gallons are so minuscule compared to the benefits of U.S. strength and security, the benefits of job creation and energy security," Landrieu said at a hearing last month on offshore drilling. "So while there are risks associated with everything, I think you understand that they are quite, quite minimal."

"They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation," said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. "They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band."

Other politicians with ties to coastal states or states with BP refineries have also reaped benefits from the fourth largest company in the world.

The top congressional recipients of BP campaign cash include Republican Rep. Don Young of the oil-intensive Alaska delegation, who has received almost as much as Obama, raking in $73,300 during his congressional tenure. Also on the list is Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), whose state has a BP refinery in Toledo and who has raked in $41,400. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has received $44,899.

"Make no mistake: BP ranks among the most powerful corporate forces in U.S. politics," said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "It donates hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle through its employees and political action committee and is routinely a seven- or eight-figure federal lobbying powerhouse each year."

In 2008 alone, BP gave $37,000 to members of the House Energy Committee and $106,501 to members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which deals with security issues facing the nation's oil supply.

BP has also evolved in its corporate giving over the past decade, shifting more money to Democrats. In 2000, the company gave almost 39 percent more to Republicans than to Democrats. But by 2008, Democrats had nearly pulled even with Republicans on BP donations.

Moreover, the company has nearly tripled the amount of money it has spent on lobbying, from about $5.7 million in 1999 to $15.9 million last year, according to lobbying disclosures.

BP has bulked up its K Street team by signing some of the biggest firms in Washington, several of which employ former Hill staffers with deep-seated ties to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico coast.

BP representation within lobby shop Alpine Group alone includes lobbyist Bob Brooks, who served as chief of staff to former Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), and lobbyist Rebecca Hawes, a longtime counsel for former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). Jason Schendle worked for Landrieu for nine years, according to lobbying disclosures.

Former Rep. Jim Turner, now a lobbyist for BP with Arnold & Porter, formerly represented the 2nd District of Texas, which includes a large piece of Gulf shoreline. And at DC Legislative and Regulatory Services, BP lobbyist David Marin was formerly the lead Hill staffer for Congress's Select Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

"First, they are exceedingly competent. Second, they are. I know the first will help enormously in the next few weeks. I am not so sure about the second," said Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKen­na of MWR Strategies, who predicted that Landrieu would quite likely get "very wide latitude" on the oil issue. "That may not be the case with BP, whose record is a bit more spotty."

Source = http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505



And never mind that the Obama administration thought so highly of BP’s operations that his Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management made BP a finalist for their 2010 SAFE Award.

Quote:
MMS Reveals SAFE Award Finalists for Outer Continental Shelf

The Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service today announced the national finalists for the Safety Awards for Excellence (SAFE) competition sponsored by the Minerals Management Service. Presented annually to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas operators and contractors who achieve excellence in safety and pollution prevention, the National SAFE awards recognize outstanding performance by the offshore industry.

"The SAFE award is one of the highest honors MMS can bestow upon a company," said MMS acting Director Walter Cruickshank. "It signifies that safety and environmentally sound operations are the top priority for an offshore operator."

The 2009 SAFE categories and finalists (in alphabetical order) are:

High OCS Activity
Anadarko Petroleum Co.
BP Corp North America Inc.
Devon Energy Production Co.
ExxonMobil Corp.

Moderate OCS Activity
Badger Oil Corp.
BHP Billiton Petroleum Inc.
Hunt Petroleum Inc.
Noble Energy, Inc.

Drilling Contractor
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc.
ENSCO International Inc.
Noble Drilling Corp.

Production Contractor
Baker Energy
C&D Production Specialist Co.
Danos & Curole Marine Contractors


OCS oil and gas operators from the high and moderate categories as well as drilling and production contractors are eligible to be selected as finalists for the award. A company that qualifies under the high activity category produces at least 10 million barrels of oil per year and operates a minimum of 1,000 in-service components during the year. A moderate activity company produces at least one million barrels of oil per year and operates a minimum of 100 in-service components during the year. The MMS selects one winner from each category.

The National SAFE Awards will be presented at an Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) luncheon on May 7, 2009, at 12 noon, in Room 300, Level 2, of the Reliant Center in Houston, Texas.

Source = http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=75308


In the end, I believe the responsible party for the disaster is BP, but you can sing the usual chorus of “Blame Bush” However, the federal response is clearly and squarely the responsibility of the president, and Obama is performing his usual, piss-poor, incompetent job at managing that.
Bikerman
Quote:
LOL. Typical “Blame Bush” mentality from the left, never accepting their own responsibility.
I have no particular responsibility...
If you mean not blaming Obama - I do. I blame him for several failings, and he probably should have acted faster to reverse the moves of the last administration. I cut him a little slack for time pressure - it hasn't exactly been an uneventful first year - but it is perfectly correct to point out that the current administration must take the blame for that which they could have done and didn't.

As for lobbyists financing politicians - I'm a very longstanding critic of anything of the sort. The notion that companies pay millions into campaign funds and get nothing back is obviously nonsense. The US political system stinks to high heaven and has done for as long as I can remember. I'm not going to even try to defend ANY politician (Obama included) who takes money from such lobbyists, but it is about time that Americans actually grabbed hold of this issue and did something about it.
Our politics is clean by comparison, and yet we have just finished an 18 month sustained and concerted trashing of our MPs for fiddling expenses. Politicians have been put in the dock here for things which would be considered quite normal in the US.
The citizens need to give politicians a slapping every now and again to remind them who they work for. Stick a few Senators in prison would probably be a good place to start. Picking on the odd one - like Ted Stevens (Alaska) is OK but you need to grab a really big handful of them and put them through hell - it has a salutory effect on the rest Smile
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
LOL. Typical “Blame Bush” mentality from the left, never accepting their own responsibility.
I have no particular responsibility...
If you mean not blaming Obama - I do. I blame him for several failings, and he probably should have acted faster to reverse the moves of the last administration. I cut him a little slack for time pressure - it hasn't exactly been an uneventful first year - but it is perfectly correct to point out that the current administration must take the blame for that which they could have done and didn't.

I can see your point regarding the ‘time pressure’ argument , but Obama issued a rash of executive orders on his very first day: new ones and some rescinding existing previous executive orders. Obviously he chose to focus on what he thought was important and/or needed to be changed. So if he was so concerned about the previous administration’s actions on this subject and there was such an “inevitable” danger, he would have addressed it early on, right? No, instead he then turned his focus on a slew of pet projects and spending, which we will have to deal with. And Obama was the one to make a point during the campaign that he could ‘do more than one thing at a time’ so the idea that he simply had too much on his plate is silly. The office will always have many, many life and death issues involved, and if Obama was/is unable to handle the office he should have let someone who was/is able do it.


Bikerman wrote:
As for lobbyists financing politicians - I'm a very longstanding critic of anything of the sort. The notion that companies pay millions into campaign funds and get nothing back is obviously nonsense. The US political system stinks to high heaven and has done for as long as I can remember. I'm not going to even try to defend ANY politician (Obama included) who takes money from such lobbyists, but it is about time that Americans actually grabbed hold of this issue and did something about it.
Our politics is clean by comparison, and yet we have just finished an 18 month sustained and concerted trashing of our MPs for fiddling expenses. Politicians have been put in the dock here for things which would be considered quite normal in the US.
The citizens need to give politicians a slapping every now and again to remind them who they work for. Stick a few Senators in prison would probably be a good place to start. Picking on the odd one - like Ted Stevens (Alaska) is OK but you need to grab a really big handful of them and put them through hell - it has a salutory effect on the rest Smile

I sort of agree with you here too, but with a few disagreements. But that’s for another time/thread.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I can see your point regarding the ‘time pressure’ argument , but Obama issued a rash of executive orders on his very first day: new ones and some rescinding existing previous executive orders. Obviously he chose to focus on what he thought was important and/or needed to be changed.


Wait, now you're criticizing Obama for not reversing Bush's disastrous deregulation fast enough? (I seem to recall rightwingers complaining he was doing too much too fast.) So you're a strong advocate for more regulations on the oil companies, you're against the Republican's longheld stance that deregulation is the way, and are criticizing Obama from the left?

In other words what right wing Obama critics are saying is Obama is to blame because he didn't reverse our Republican deregulation policies immediately. Standard right wing derangement.

The truth is they'll use any pretzel logic to take any position as long as it involves blaming Obama for anything and everything, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I can see your point regarding the ‘time pressure’ argument , but Obama issued a rash of executive orders on his very first day: new ones and some rescinding existing previous executive orders. Obviously he chose to focus on what he thought was important and/or needed to be changed.


Wait, now you're criticizing Obama for not reversing Bush's disastrous deregulation fast enough? (I seem to recall rightwingers complaining he was doing too much too fast.) So you're a strong advocate for more regulations on the oil companies, you're against the Republican's longheld stance that deregulation is the way, and are criticizing Obama from the left?

In other words what right wing Obama critics are saying is Obama is to blame because he didn't reverse our Republican deregulation policies immediately. Standard right wing derangement.

The truth is they'll use any pretzel logic to take any position as long as it involves blaming Obama for anything and everything, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look.


*facepalm*
Taking a small bit of my response out of context doesn’t make whatever point you’re trying to make. But my point is simple enough. The argument that somehow Bush is to blame for Obama’s failures a year and a half after Bush left office is simply stupid. And the claim that somehow an executive order from Bush was the cause of the disaster is also simply stupid for two reasons:
1. Obama had a year and a half to rescind that order if he really felt it was dangerous or ill advised. He didn’t, even though he said he reviewed every single executive order and rescinded those he felt were dangerous or ill advised.
2. Obama went even further than Bush and made a speech advocating even more offshore drilling days before the spill. If he really had an issue with Bush’s policies, why would he double down on them?
In the end BP is mostly to blame for the disaster, not Obama or Bush. It was a big accident that BP just wasn’t prepared for. But the federal response is 100% Obama’s responsibility, and he is doing his usual, horrible job managing it.

BTW, here’s the full paragraph where you cherry picked one section.
Quote:
I can see your point regarding the ‘time pressure’ argument, but Obama issued a rash of executive orders on his very first day: new ones and some rescinding existing previous executive orders. Obviously he chose to focus on what he thought was important and/or needed to be changed. So if he was so concerned about the previous administration’s actions on this subject and there was such an “inevitable” danger, he would have addressed it early on, right? No, instead he then turned his focus on a slew of pet projects and spending, which we will have to deal with. And Obama was the one to make a point during the campaign that he could ‘do more than one thing at a time’ so the idea that he simply had too much on his plate is silly. The office will always have many, many life and death issues involved, and if Obama was/is unable to handle the office he should have let someone who was/is able do it.
jmi256
BTW, the Obama administration was so concerned about BP and offshore drilling that it gave BP an exemption from environmental impact studies days before the explosion and spill. But it must be Bush’s fault.

Quote:
U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.

Rethinking the rules
Now, environmentalists and some key senators are calling for a reassessment of safety requirements for offshore drilling.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has supported offshore oil drilling in the past, said, "I suspect you're going to see an entirely different regime once people have a chance to sit back and take a look at how do we anticipate and clean up these potential environmental consequences" from drilling.

BP spokesman Toby Odone said the company's appeal for NEPA waivers in the past "was based on the spill and incident-response history in the Gulf of Mexico." Once the various investigations of the new spill have been completed, he added, "the causes of this incident can be applied to determine any changes in the regulatory regime that are required to protect the environment."

"I'm of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday. "That, in my opinion, is what happened."

Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said it is important to learn the cause of the accident before pursuing a major policy change. "While the conversation has shifted, the energy reality has not," Gerard said. "The American economy still relies on oil and gas."

While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout.

In one assessment, the agency estimated that "a large oil spill" from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a "deepwater spill," occurring "offshore of the inner Continental shelf," would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall.

"They never did an analysis that took into account what turns out to be the very real possibility of a serious spill," said Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who has reviewed the documents.

The MMS mandates that companies drilling in some areas identify under NEPA what could reduce a project's environmental impact. But Interior Department spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said the service grants between 250 and 400 waivers a year for Gulf of Mexico projects. He added that Interior has now established the "first ever" board to examine safety procedures for offshore drilling. It will report back within 30 days on BP's oil spill and will conduct "a broader review of safety issues," Lee-Ashley said.

BP's exploration plan for Lease 206, which calls the prospect of an oil spill "unlikely," stated that "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."

While the plan included a 13-page environmental impact analysis, it minimized the prospect of any serious damage associated with a spill, saying there would be only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine mammals, and "birds could become oiled. However it is unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."

Kierán Suckling, executive director of the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, said the federal waiver "put BP entirely in control" of the way it conducted its drilling.

Agency a 'rubber stamp'
"The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," Suckling said.

BP has lobbied the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- which provides NEPA guidance for all federal agencies-- to provide categorical exemptions more often. In an April 9 letter, BP America's senior federal affairs director, Margaret D. Laney, wrote to the council that such exemptions should be used in situations where environmental damage is likely to be "minimal or non-existent." An expansion in these waivers would help "avoid unnecessary paperwork and time delays," she added.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were talking Tuesday about curtailing offshore oil exploration rather than making it easier. In addition to traditional foes of offshore drilling such as Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and centrists such as Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said they are taking a second look at such methods.

"It's time to push the pause button," Baucus told reporters.

Source = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
BTW, the Obama administration was so concerned about BP and offshore drilling that it gave BP an exemption from environmental impact studies days before the explosion and spill. But it must be Bush’s fault.

Once again, you can't have it both ways. Either you are for stronger government regulations or you're not. Since you are an overt right winger with your own private "Another Government Fail" thread, we can guess the answer.

So that would bring up the hypocrisy factor -- you are against more government regulations and oversight of oil companies, but if you can use it to smear the president, suddenly you claim Obama is at fault for not doing enough government oversight, and for not reversing the Bush's deregulation.

You can clear this up easily by just answering the simple question at the heart of the matter. Are you for more government oversight of the oil companies even if it would cut down on their profits, are you for stronger environmental laws and their strict enforcement, even if it would delay oil company drilling and make them less profitable and competitive?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
you are against more government regulations and oversight of oil companies, but if you can use it to smear the president, suddenly you claim Obama is at fault for not doing enough government oversight, and for not reversing the Bush's deregulation.
There were perfectly good Federal Government regulations in place that had not been followed. The Federal Government exempted BP from them. So do we need new regulations to check up on those implementing the regulations? Corruption must have been rife for BP to have been exempted from existing regulations. I have not heard Obama saying one word about that yet. Have you? Instead he is talking as though there were no regulations in place and regulations have to be created.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
you are against more government regulations and oversight of oil companies, but if you can use it to smear the president, suddenly you claim Obama is at fault for not doing enough government oversight, and for not reversing the Bush's deregulation.
There were perfectly good Federal Government regulations in place that had not been followed. The Federal Government exempted BP from them. So do we need new regulations to check up on those implementing the regulations? Corruption must have been rife for BP to have been exempted from existing regulations. I have not heard Obama saying one word about that yet. Have you? Instead he is talking as though there were no regulations in place and regulations have to be created.
Leaving aside the logical problem with that (ie if BP were exempted from regulation then it follows that adequate regulation could not have been in place) then which exeptions do you mean?

The only 'exeption' that I know of during this presidential term was the one from an environmental annual impact study. That was April 6 2009 -he had only been in post a few weeks and he was still getting to grips with basic geo-politics, so I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to have been fully up to speed on this type of regulation exemption at that time - particularly one which had been pretty much nodded-through before he took office..Obama is not 'Speaking Up', I presume, because people would just accuse him of living in the past, buck-passing and not dealing with the present problem
I think the notion that there is 'adequate' regulation is clearly not true. The experts are mostly working for BP, and even experts don't know much about drilling a mile down through rough oceans.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
you are against more government regulations and oversight of oil companies, but if you can use it to smear the president, suddenly you claim Obama is at fault for not doing enough government oversight, and for not reversing the Bush's deregulation.
There were perfectly good Federal Government regulations in place that had not been followed. The Federal Government exempted BP from them. So do we need new regulations to check up on those implementing the regulations? Corruption must have been rife for BP to have been exempted from existing regulations. I have not heard Obama saying one word about that yet. Have you? Instead he is talking as though there were no regulations in place and regulations have to be created.
Leaving aside the logical problem with that (ie if BP were exempted from regulation then it follows that adequate regulation could not have been in place) then which exeptions do you mean?

The only 'exeption' that I know of during this presidential term was the one from an environmental annual impact study. That was April 6 2009 -he had only been in post a few weeks and he was still getting to grips with basic geo-politics, so I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to have been fully up to speed on this type of regulation exemption at that time - particularly one which had been pretty much nodded-through before he took office..Obama is not 'Speaking Up', I presume, because people would just accuse him of living in the past, buck-passing and not dealing with the present problem
I think the notion that there is 'adequate' regulation is clearly not true. The experts are mostly working for BP, and even experts don't know much about drilling a mile down through rough oceans.
I got it from an article that you referred us to in a previous discussion about the oil spill:
Ken Salazar, corporatism and the BP oil spill There was no date mentioned in the article, but that article was quite specific (also very interesting):
Quote:
After I argued last week that most of the criticisms of Obama's post-spill conduct seemed overblown to me, I noted that there is substantial evidence reflecting quite negatively on the administration's pre-spill behavior. Most incriminating were the episodes described by this Washington Post article from earlier this month, in which the Interior Department "exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis." Specifically, "the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) [gave] BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a 'categorical exclusion' from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009." For any government approval given to projects that could significantly impact the environment, NEPA generally requires that the relevant agency assess "the environmental impact of the proposed action," and it specifically requires for oil exploration projects that the Interior Department review the proposed project for, among other things, its environmental impact (h/t Brendan).

It was those legal requirements for which MMS issued an exemption for the BP Deepwater Horizon project. The issuance of those exemptions was preceded by extensive lobbying by BP, which -- as usual -- succeeded in its objectives: "The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans," said Center for Biological Diversity's Kierán Suckling.

The Obama White House clearly recognizes how damaging this exemption story could be, because the President, unprompted, raised that issue several times in his Press Conference last week. This is the explanation he gave as to why his Interior Department issued those exemptions to BP:

Quote:
[T]here is a thorough environmental review as to whether a certain portion of the Gulf should be leased or not. . . . .Under current law, the Interior Department has only 30 days to review an exploration plan submitted by an oil company. That leaves no time for the appropriate environmental review. The result is, they're continually waived. And this is just one example of a law that was tailored by the industry to serve their needs instead of the public's.


That excuse made very little sense to me as soon as I heard it. It seems highly unlikely that Congress -- which is not exactly notorious for imposing excessively rigorous regulations on the oil industry -- would enact a statutory requirement which, self-evidently, would be too rigorous to meet. But even if that were true -- even if Congress really did impose an impossible-to-meet 30-day period for conducting environmental reviews -- why didn't the Obama adminstration, whose party controls the Congress, ever ask that the law be amended to provide 6o or 90 days, or however much time is needed to complete the review? Or why didn't Interior officials tell the oil industry that they would refuse to issue these permits until the industry had their lobbyists instruct Congress to change the law to allow for a more reasonable timeframe?

coolclay
Why does every post in the politics forum always boil down to one side bashing one president the other bashing the other sides president!!! You nincompoops are like children fighting over which icecream flavor is better!!

We all share equal blame in this horrific situation, ever one knows we have people from big business "experts" in all branches of our regulatory branches of the federal government. How does anyone expect people to properly regulate from a neutral standpoint when they themselves worked for the same industry and corporations that they are regulating. This occurs in every single regulatory administration in our government, FDA, EPA, FERC, ICC, etc. I could give you hundreds of names entirely non-dependent on whether a R or a D was in office.

When we as a nation tell the government we want cheap domestic oil/gas, and put our votes on it, then hurried, rushed, ill planned projects will continue happening with our Earth as the final sacrifice.

So each and everyone of us including myself (but not as much, I have a grease truck) are responsible for the consequences of our oil addiction.

It is true that yes Obama has stopped the dredging efforts that may certainly help mitigate the danger. The Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOE) and the EPA made many mistakes including the use of oil dispersants, and not properly enforcing the law requiring environmental impact studies from being done. But honestly had they down the impact studies, it would not have prevented this from happening.

It's also true that past administrations have also taken it easy on energy corporations in regards to regulation.

This just further demonstrates the FACT that we are all to blame. Up until this incident everyone was championing off-shore drilling as super safe. It isn't until a global catastrophe that we actually pay attention and usually then it only makes a difference for the year after, and after that it's back to business.
Bikerman
But this is not anything like the most imporant issue. I don't think it is being a nincompoop to try and inject some balance, which was my goal. I'm a european leftie so I have nothing much in common with either Obama or Bush - Obama isn't left-wing in any sense I understand.

A much bigger and ongoing issue is getting the damn oil to where it needs to be. This is where the real devastation begins. Either you float it around on tankers with hulls like tissue paper (comparatively), or you build pipelines and then deal with the ethic and national uproar that ensues (witness Russia and the Baltic region - all fighting desperately to get a piece of the pie).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043185/The-Pipeline-War-Russian-bear-goes-Wests-jugular.html
coolclay
Quote:
But this is not anything like the most imporant issue


I whole heartedly agree especially considering I am a marine scientist.

Quote:
I don't think it is being a nincompoop to try and inject some balance, which was my goal.
I agree but you're certainly not Mr. Fair and Balanced, and from previous posts usually end up exacerbating most dialogues after putting your left wing diatribe into the political "discussions".

In the end we still have one of the largest environmental disasters that we all are responsible for and can do very little about besides ending our addiction to oil.

When we are at the point that we need to drill oil from the last few untouched and mostly unreachable places of our planet, places that for the most part we know very little about (the deep sea) and have very little control over, this tells me that we are grasping at the last few remaining bits of oil on our planet. What are we waiting for, to quite literally "run out of oil", or are we going to wait for oil to reach $1,000/barrel, when millions will be dieing in wars over those last few drops of oil.

We have made the smallest little baby steps towards recognizing freedom from oil but even those baby steps have been fought tooth and nail by some individuals, and corporations.

For example at one point California was the leader in biodiesel manufacturing and you could find B99 at thousands of places across the state now thanks to a ruling by the State Water Board, it is illegal to store underground like regular diesel and gasoline essentially making all dealers no longer able to sell it.

Oil corporations are spending billions to stop alternative fuels because they know it is the end for them. [/quote]
Bikerman
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
But this is not anything like the most imporant issue


I whole heartedly agree especially considering I am a marine scientist.

Quote:
I don't think it is being a nincompoop to try and inject some balance, which was my goal.
I agree but you're certainly not Mr. Fair and Balanced, and from previous posts usually end up exacerbating most dialogues after putting your left wing diatribe into the political "discussions".
Diatribe? I am quite up-front about my politics, but I'm not normally given to political rants...What I constantly see in discussions on these boards is polarisation based on personality, and a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of actual political positions. I don't much care about who is the US president - not my call. Obviously Obama is preferrable to Bush to me, but I have no particular torch to carry on his behalf. I do care about him being described as left wing, socialist or any similar thing because I find that offensive to my own political views and a gross misunderstanding of what those words mean. If pointing this out is a left wing diatribe then so be it.

As regards balance - I think my postings are pretty balanced on the whole. I don't take a particularly political position in the main, and try to stick to facts. If I see an unanswered attack on something I will often respond (and believe it or not, sometimes on the 'other' side).

As regards your main point - hmm. I know people don't like to take personal responsibility and I know it does some good every now and again to point that out, but I'm not sure how much blame you can individualise on this one. The average person has very little choice other than to burn oil. Alternative energy sources are still largely window-dressing. Sure, one thing Americans could do is not drive V8 monsters - but my friends tell me that a lot of Americans are changing down, and to be honest that is something that the market could certainly help with. Put your petrol prices up to european levels and the average size of engine would come down pretty quickly.
Alternatively we could look at solar panels or wind generation as the other two technologies within reach of the individual. Both are comparatively expensive. Is it reasonable to expect the average jo to stump up for a technology that MIGHT pay for itself in 60-80 years, assuming it doesn't break down in the meantime? Solar panels are being massively over-hyped as an alternative.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html

As for wind power - that's even worse. What do you do when the wind doesn't blow? Therefore you need an alternative supply anyway. Given that, then the technology is of little interest to most people.

So what is left? Cutting waste is certainly something that more energy (ouch) should be put into. We could reasonably save about 1/4 of current energy use without drastic measures. Certainly people should switch lights and videos/TVs off (but even there a technological solution would be better - modern devices are coming with 'stand-by' modes that use almost no power rather than the crazy amounts used by current devices).
Cutting down on driving? Probably not going to happen much in a country the size of the US methinks, unless there is a significant financial stick or carrot....

So yes, you can say the individual is to blame but I think that rather shifts the blame from those who can to those who can't. Responsibility has to lie with those with the power to change things - that is the large corporations and national governments. Unfortunately the latter is very weak in democracies, since we work on 4-5 year cycles and that is nowhere near enough to do anything radical.
Conclusion? We're screwed.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
This just further demonstrates the FACT that we are all to blame. Up until this incident everyone was championing off-shore drilling as super safe. It isn't until a global catastrophe that we actually pay attention and usually then it only makes a difference for the year after, and after that it's back to business.
A real good posting, thanks coolclay. And totally agreed. People should stop this blame game and get down to solving the problem UNITED. Poking at divisions and pointing fingers are just making the situation worse. And I agree with you, all of us are guilty, especially Obama, since he is supposed to get people to rally together. His last speech was a disaster in this regard. It could have been a wonderful opportunity to get people together on one page. Instead it was a marketing pitch and tackle BP session.
liljp617
Hey we're all to blame, but this guy is more to blame because he didn't make a certain kind of speech.

He gets criticized for making "cheesy" speeches that unite and get people excited, and he gets criticized for not making those speeches.

Rolling Eyes

How do you say "we should stop pointing fingers and making divisions" and follow that up with a blatant "pointing" of a finger and divisive speech? All in the same post...
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
How do you say "we should stop pointing fingers and making divisions" and follow that up with a blatant "pointing" of a finger and divisive speech? All in the same post...
Good point, however, isn't Obama the one who set the tone for finger pointing?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
How do you say "we should stop pointing fingers and making divisions" and follow that up with a blatant "pointing" of a finger and divisive speech? All in the same post...
Good point, however, isn't Obama the one who set the tone for finger pointing?


If you believe Obama was in the wrong on the premise that he "pointed a finger," then you can't be opposed to people holding you to the same principle. It's completely irrelevant to who started it -- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

If you believe what he did was wrong, you can't defend your own actions by saying "he did it first."


Of course, we could deal with who did what wrong and whether Obama falls into the category of having done anything wrong. Frankly, I don't believe people want the finger-pointing to stop, because people rarely follow through. It's a nice catch phrase -- "we should all drop the bickering and work together at a common cause" -- but it seems relatively rare for even the people who say that to actually commit to the action. When they do, it goes unnoticed most of the time.

And none of this is really a big deal, because people have different approaches to solving problems and they have different moral foundations that they're working by. There's a reason a lot of finger-pointing goes on and that is because people simply don't agree with each other when it comes to the root of problems. People see the world differently, and thus have different approaches. When they're in chairs of "authority," they take it upon themselves to say the other guy is doing it wrong.

It's not a big deal, it's expected. I don't expect it to stop and perhaps it is healthy to an extent.
jmi256
Obama is the president, and it is his job to coordinate the federal response to the disaster. His incompetence at handling the federal response falls squarely on his shoulders. This article makes some good points and suggestions as to quickly handle some of the issues plaguing Obama's weak 'response' to the Gulf disaster. I hope he’s paying attention.

Quote:
Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow?
There are obvious actions to speed things up, but the government oddly resists taking them.


As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.

Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.

Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.

To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we "embrace a clean energy future." In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?

Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339650877298556.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
peyote
Primitive societies

url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

[MOD - we don't allow posters to simply cut and paste from a third party, unless there is a point that the poster wishes to add, and even then we insist that quote tags are used and that the source is listed
Bikerman]
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
How do you say "we should stop pointing fingers and making divisions" and follow that up with a blatant "pointing" of a finger and divisive speech? All in the same post...
Good point, however, isn't Obama the one who set the tone for finger pointing?


If you believe Obama was in the wrong on the premise that he "pointed a finger," then you can't be opposed to people holding you to the same principle. It's completely irrelevant to who started it -- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

If you believe what he did was wrong, you can't defend your own actions by saying "he did it first."


Of course, we could deal with who did what wrong and whether Obama falls into the category of having done anything wrong. Frankly, I don't believe people want the finger-pointing to stop, because people rarely follow through. It's a nice catch phrase -- "we should all drop the bickering and work together at a common cause" -- but it seems relatively rare for even the people who say that to actually commit to the action. When they do, it goes unnoticed most of the time.

And none of this is really a big deal, because people have different approaches to solving problems and they have different moral foundations that they're working by. There's a reason a lot of finger-pointing goes on and that is because people simply don't agree with each other when it comes to the root of problems. People see the world differently, and thus have different approaches. When they're in chairs of "authority," they take it upon themselves to say the other guy is doing it wrong.

It's not a big deal, it's expected. I don't expect it to stop and perhaps it is healthy to an extent.
If you read my posting, I did not say he did the finger pointing first. I said he set the tone. It is all over the media, and a fact. He created the atmosphere. He could have set a different tone. I.e working with differences. Uniting the differences. Act like a leader instead of a campaigner.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
How do you say "we should stop pointing fingers and making divisions" and follow that up with a blatant "pointing" of a finger and divisive speech? All in the same post...
Good point, however, isn't Obama the one who set the tone for finger pointing?


If you believe Obama was in the wrong on the premise that he "pointed a finger," then you can't be opposed to people holding you to the same principle. It's completely irrelevant to who started it -- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

If you believe what he did was wrong, you can't defend your own actions by saying "he did it first."


Of course, we could deal with who did what wrong and whether Obama falls into the category of having done anything wrong. Frankly, I don't believe people want the finger-pointing to stop, because people rarely follow through. It's a nice catch phrase -- "we should all drop the bickering and work together at a common cause" -- but it seems relatively rare for even the people who say that to actually commit to the action. When they do, it goes unnoticed most of the time.

And none of this is really a big deal, because people have different approaches to solving problems and they have different moral foundations that they're working by. There's a reason a lot of finger-pointing goes on and that is because people simply don't agree with each other when it comes to the root of problems. People see the world differently, and thus have different approaches. When they're in chairs of "authority," they take it upon themselves to say the other guy is doing it wrong.

It's not a big deal, it's expected. I don't expect it to stop and perhaps it is healthy to an extent.
If you read my posting, I did not say he did the finger pointing first. I said he set the tone. It is all over the media, and a fact. He created the atmosphere. He could have set a different tone. I.e working with differences. Uniting the differences. Act like a leader instead of a campaigner.


Point remains. You're still pointing a finger at someone immediately after saying we should stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem "united."

Either you want the "blame game" (as you called it) to stop or you don't, it can't be both ways. If you want it to stop, the first step would be refraining from doing it yourself.

As I said, most people don't want finger-pointing to stop, even if they say they do. Again, it's a nice positive catch phrase -- "stop the bickering, work together" -- but rarely do people follow through with it...for good reason (see previous post: different moral foundations, different goals, different mindsets, etc.; people point fingers because they don't agree on how others are going about certain tasks; it's arguably a healthy part of politics and debate in general, to an extent).
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
As I said, most people don't want finger-pointing to stop, even if they say they do. Again, it's a nice positive catch phrase -- "stop the bickering, work together" -- but rarely do people follow through with it...for good reason (see previous post: different moral foundations, different goals, different mindsets, etc.; people point fingers because they don't agree on how others are going about certain tasks; it's arguably a healthy part of politics and debate in general, to an extent).
So in this specific case, who do you think is in the best position to tell everyone to stop blaming and finger pointing?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
As I said, most people don't want finger-pointing to stop, even if they say they do. Again, it's a nice positive catch phrase -- "stop the bickering, work together" -- but rarely do people follow through with it...for good reason (see previous post: different moral foundations, different goals, different mindsets, etc.; people point fingers because they don't agree on how others are going about certain tasks; it's arguably a healthy part of politics and debate in general, to an extent).
So in this specific case, who do you think is in the best position to tell everyone to stop blaming and finger pointing?


No one, because I have no desire for the finger pointing to stop. It's a healthy aspect of a representative government, in my opinion. Advancements are made when people are open to taking and giving criticism.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
As I said, most people don't want finger-pointing to stop, even if they say they do. Again, it's a nice positive catch phrase -- "stop the bickering, work together" -- but rarely do people follow through with it...for good reason (see previous post: different moral foundations, different goals, different mindsets, etc.; people point fingers because they don't agree on how others are going about certain tasks; it's arguably a healthy part of politics and debate in general, to an extent).
So in this specific case, who do you think is in the best position to tell everyone to stop blaming and finger pointing?


No one, because I have no desire for the finger pointing to stop. It's a healthy aspect of a representative government, in my opinion. Advancements are made when people are open to taking and giving criticism.
Looks as though we differ on this. For me there is a difference between a leader and a campaigner. I have not seen true leadership in Obama yet.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.