Clearly, the fumes from the oil spill are already causing brain damage

[hedgehog]

all over the country. Here on DU I've read posts that buy into the Republican talking points meant to take down Obama over the oil spill. The federal government does not have the equipment or the responsibility for cleaning up an oil spill. Anything that the federal government has done so far is a case of above and beyond. Governor Jindal should be beating on BP, not Obama.

Also; with regards to the complaint that the Army Corps of engineers is holding up dredging operations and the construction of berms by waiting for an environmental impact statement, can anyone here guarantee that such an operation won't make things worse? Where will the sand come from? What does it contain? Will dredging the sand release buried pollutants? What happens to water flow at the dredging site? Will dredging sand increase outflow to the Continental shelf and speed up the destruction of barrier islands? Do we demand an environmental impact statement only when it deters activity we don't approve of?

[ShamelessHussy]

1. yeah, the perception of an inadequate response is all in their obama hating heads

:eyes:

[hedgehog]

2. I'm hearing an awful lot of hot air about how Obama needs to do more

to clean up BP's mess, and very few demands that we look at the laws regulating off-shore drilling.

[Scuba]

4. +1

[aquart]

9. Then you have selective hearing.

What we are suggesting is that, having assumed all of Bush's usurped power, THAT HE USE IT TO DO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. (We have an emergency in the Gulf. Perhaps he'll get to it after tea.)

You also know bloody well (and if you don't you've been in hibernation this year) that the process of writing effective legislation is very difficult especially now. NICE to throw the focus off the ONE PERSON who actually has the power to cut through that.

Go chant "YES, WE CAN!" and see if anything happens.

[The Hope Mobile]

69. + 1 nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Pretty much.

And the various RW media outlets hat they choose as their sole source for information.

[piniongear]

98. Hear what the President of Plaquemines Parish Thinks about the response.

Billy, dosen't hate anyone he is worried about taking care of his Parish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQUfOZTK-Y

[ShamelessHussy]

130. thank you for that VIDEO piniongear

:toast:

[aquart]

3. I don't read Republican talking points.

I form my own opinions and change them when they're proven wrong. Pro-drilling Obama has been USELESS.

IT'S OVER A MONTH with oil soiling islands and killing EVERYTHING near it. And you expect me to appreciate the prissy, useless reaction of the White House?

WHY AREN'T OUR PEOPLE ALL OVER THAT ISLAND PROTECTING THE WORKERS BEING SENT OUT WITHOUT HAZMAT SUITS because they're in the section behind the police line where no cameras go? WHO IS OVERSEEING WORKER PROTECTION and don't you dare attempt to tell me that isn't the federal government's job.

The administration performance has saved not one bird, not one fish, not one man.

And if that's a Republican talking point then those bozos may finally have found a winner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Here is a reality given history

it will take a year.

Don't make me happy, but it will take a year. (Relief well, wanna bet)

And they are failing in the PR department... seriously failing, that said they are not sitting pretty either.

This reminds me so much of Haiti and GOD THEY ARE NOT DOING A THING AND TURNING PLANES AROUND...

[johnaries]

128. Actually, you probably have because they are ALL OVER DU.

As for the performance of the WH, it has been anything BUT "prissy", although I am afraid you are right, or at least close to being right, that they have been pretty close to "useless". But the ineffectiveness is not because of the lack of effort by the WH but because of the sheer enormity of the problem.

As many DUer's have posted before, it should NOT have been allowed to happen in the first place.

The best response both the WH and Congress was the beginning of multiple investigations into "what went wrong" and some action has already been taken - such as the restruction as the MMS. But that still doesn't address the current problem which is still the major priority.

And, yes, the government has taken major steps both to plug the leak and to clean-up the mess. There are plenty of links on DU, if you care to read them and learn the truth.

But, there are plenty of people who want to repeat Republican talking points and point fingers at Obama, rather than actually learn the truth.

[William Z. Foster]

139. ignoring the present

I find all of the talk about whom to blame from the past, and legislation or commissions or investigations that may happen in the future disturbing. It is as though people want us to ignore what is happening right now. so they talk about the past and the future and insist that these are what is important.

At issue here is not what "steps" the government is taking, nor what was done in the past or may be done in the future, not what equipment or expertise the government "has," but rather who is in charge and whose interests are being served.

[William Z. Foster]

6. I can't believe it

First, whether or not the government has "the equipment" is completely irrelevant. The government did not always have "the equipment" any other time it took over control of an emergency response or other large project for the public benefit or to protect public welfare. Commandeer, nationalize, buy, borrow the equipment needed, hire the experts needed and get to work. That is what the government has always done. That is the very reason we have a government in the first place.

I cannot believe that this talking point, a right wing libertarian anti-government talking point, keeps getting repeated.

And then you are saying that "the federal government does not have the responsibility????"

Wow.

The federal government has a DUTY to promote and protect the public welfare.

So let me see if I am hearing you correctly - those who are arguing for privatization are actually the political left, and those arguing for nationalization are the right wingers trying to "take Obama down."

Right. I am anxious to see how many DUers that "up is down" logic flies with. I fear it may be quite a few.

[Bluebear]

13. I can, easily.

[William Z. Foster]

21. just realized

People must be watching a ton of cable, and deeply enmeshed in and obsessed with the partisan bickering - as presented and defined and described by the talking heads.

What we are seeing is exactly how the right wing think tanks, on behalf of their corporate masters, control the debate - this is a textbook example.

The right wing propagandists do not so much succeed by promoting "tea bagger" arguments - that is all a distraction. It is not done by "rallying the base." What they are doing is defining the liberal positions for people. First they get people all emotional and upset about Palin and tea baggers. Then they won't be thinking clearly. Then they feed the liberal lines to people, tell them the position that liberals should take - "now another point of view from people that disagree with insane lunatics like Palin. Many Democrats say that Obama is doing the best he can, and that the government does not have the equipment or authority to take over command of the response to the emergency. They say that BP will be fined, and that legislation will be passed to prevent this from happening in the future. They say that criticism of the administration is just for the purpose of gaining partisan advantage for the Republicans."

A bunch of Democrats watch that and think "yeah! That is the team I am on, I am not on that Palin team" and then they run around and spout the "liberal position" as scripted by right wing think tanks and then fed to them by the mass media, and attack anyone who questions those talking points.

What people are not seeing is that the so-called liberal position is being created for them by the mass media, and is itself a promotion of libertarianism and actually defends the corporate interests in all of this.

Right wing media is controlling the debate by telling liberals and Democrats what they should think, what their side is, what opposition to the right wing is, how it should be thought about. The right wingers are defining their own opposition, the Democrats, in such a way that the opposition is then weak and powerless and will attack each other.

That has led to Democrats promoting an anti-government libertarian privatized view on the disaster response and relief, and to them thinking that those calling for nationalization and federalization of the relief effort are the enemy. Talk about divide and conquer! Talk about sabotaging the left from within!

[Bluebear]

You absolutely nailed it. And Obama is losing control of the message.

This is why a week ago already I wondered why he is not on at prime time to address the nation. Merely sending Salazar on site to give briefings at one in the afteroon is not enough, and makes the President look uninterested, which I am sure he is not. On the other hand, any worries that the disaster is slipping away from us and voice their opinion get met with "you must be inhaling fumes". What a time.

[William Z. Foster]

47. it was interesting watching it switch

In about 24 hours the argument went from "the federal government is in charge!!!" to "what sort of crazy idea is that - to have the federal government in charge? That isn't possible!" Actually there is at least one person arguing both sides - alternately presenting each argument on different threads.

[donco6]

87. +1

[Raksha]

111. Ya know...that is a perfectly brilliant insight...

makes me wonder why I didn't see through it all before. But you're absolutely right!

This post is a keeper.

[Overseas]

136. Yes, the right wing PR machine does that.

They've amped up that technique. They create really ugly opposition to the president during Democratic administrations so that no one in the Democratic majority wants to be associated with it. They attack the president so relentlessly that liberals feel reluctant to add to that barrage.

That happened during the Clinton terms. He was under constant attack from the GOP, scrounging for any bit of scandal they could pump up, so even as he did Republican lite stuff like NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulating finance and media ownership, opposition from the left was suppressed by making it seem disloyal to the Democratic party.

Instead of Democrats seizing the desperation of citizens bankrupted by the Bush Crash and Bush Bailout and foreclosed through deceptive mortgages, and insisting on a real, efficient, easy to explain bailout for the people of Medicare for Everyone, they actually pretended Modern Republicans had not crashed our economy and national security with their over-privatization and deregulation. Democrats spent months weakening their health care reform with old Republican ideas, groveling for one or two votes from them. That gave the professional right time to revive the "genuine grass roots" movements that "have been around for years" (just dormant during destructive right wing leadership) and turn that desperation in their favor by pouring millions into the Teabagger movement.

Sadly, instead of using the progressive opposition to push through more sensible legislation like at least insisting on a public option for cost control in healthcare reform, our president and his team marginalized us with "loony left" characterization.

It has worked really well for the Right to make opposition so ugly during Democratic terms that only the more modest reforms, encouraged by legions of corporate lobbyists, are allowed to pass.

We are also grateful that our president is so much better than his predecessor, that that is also supposed to tamp down our dissent.

Here, too, our president's team did respond to the disaster more promptly and efficiently than their predecessors would have, but they limited their options by giving BP too much power to clean up the accident that their own safety short-cutting had caused. The example of the dispersant shows that well-- there are less toxic alternatives but we let BP push the one they wanted to use.

Another example is vacuuming up the oil on the surface of the ocean before it destroys the coast. A lot more could be done if we were not so intent on having BP lead the effort.

[NanceGreggs]

20. "Whether or not the government has "the equipment" ...

"... is completely irrelevant."

You have just rendered anything you have to say on this topic irrelevant.

We don't need no stinkin' equipment - or experience, expertise, etc. We should just forge ahead without those things and do - uh - whatever.

What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe we could get Randy Quaid to abandon his crop-dusting operation, a la Independence Day, and jump into the cockpit of a an inter-galactic fighter jet - which he, of course, "instinctively" knows how to fly - and he can whup the asses of those aliens (or BP people, as you like it) and PROVE that real Americans don't need no know-how, no expertise - no fuckin' equipment.

That'll get the job done!!!

[William Z. Foster]

23. okey dokey

What equipment did the government have when the railroads were nationalized under the USRA?

What equipment did the government have when railroads and railroad operations were nationalized under Conrail and Amtrak?

What experience? What expertise?

None.

This is a talking point argument that has no validity and has been utterly refuted dozens of times.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Son what was the time line

between that nationalization and operations during WW II?

Do you honestly think we have a year?

If you do, well no argument from me.

:sarcasm:

You win.

More :sarcasm:

[William Z. Foster]

38. your argument keeps changing

I am not talking about the development and manufacturing of new equipment. This is about the deployment and accountability of existing equipment and personnel, whatever exists and wherever it may now be. Of course.

This is yet another straw man argument - I never said that we should stop everything and wait a year while the government builds new equipment. Nationalization of the response to this catastrophe would not have to wait on the development of new equipment, nor would any other ongoing efforts need to come to a halt - obviously.

It does not take a year to transfer full authority over all aspects of the response to the federal government. It takes virtually no time for the ball to start rolling in the right direction.

Actually, the USRA was during WWI, not WWII.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Point to the governmet owned equipemtn

we do not have the time to spin up operations.

Deal with it.

And actually it is the same argument... just that multifaceted is something you can't deal with either.

[William Z. Foster]

49. what?

This is nuts.

I said the government need not "have equipment" in order to federalize the catastrophe response effort. You answer that with "point to the equipment?"

What you don't want us to "have the time" to do is to look critically at your arguments.

We do not need to "spin up" operations. We need the federal government, on behalf of the American people. to be in charge of the operations rather than BP.

This is a new line of argument - "we don't have time to federalize the operation!!!" And we have time to allow it to continue to be a privatized operation?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. As I have repeteadly pointed to you

it is federalized, but don't get facts get in the way.

[William Z. Foster]

62. so confusing

You argue against the government having complete control - "they don't have the equipment!" - and then turn around and say they are in complete control.

Salazar does not agree with you. He said if BP did not shape up then the government would "push them out of the way" and take over.

Allen does not agree with you. He says the "government's hands are tied" and cites a law that he claims prevents the government from taking over the operation.

But most amazingly, you do not agree with you, as you alternately argue that the operation should not be federalized, and then argue that it already is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Read on the Incident Command System and how it works

that will stop your confusion.

I gave you already plenty of links to it.

[William Z. Foster]

68. I have

Here is what I see -

An apology for a privatized system that is being spun as a kinda sorta federal system. Hell, they can't even control the message with this system, and we are expecting them to manage this emergency response?

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Then you do not understand the ICS

sorry... and no matter how much evidence you are presented you will stick to your talking points.

[William Z. Foster]

74. and the goal posts move yet again

What is it that we should understand about the ICS that is relevant to the discussion?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. No goal post moved

But here you again on it, read on it...

Now from FEMA

http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/

[William Z. Foster]

80. ROFL

A link to the FEMA homepage.

Uh...thanks.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Z. Foster]

109. now it gets really funny

You post a link to the FEMA homepage, as though that proves something. I find that funny and then you now claim I am laughing at FEMA?

No, I am laughing at your posting of a link to the FEMA homepage. It is pretty funny. How about if I post a link to the homepage of the Justice Department to "prove" my case?

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Incident Command System

they happen to use it. trying to teach something here, but I see you are far from reachable

[NanceGreggs]

28. Oh, no, you di'nt ...

But it seems that yes, you did.

You are comparing "equipment" the US gov't had or didn't have with respect to railroad operations with deep-sea drilling equipment, experience, expertise?

Maybe we can get some ol' railroad folk to dive into the Gulf and cap the oil well that's spewing into the water?

Or, wait - I have a better plan! My aunt has a barn full of old costumes - maybe we can put on a show!!!

[William Z. Foster]

42. amazing

This is embarrassing.

The government needed no railroad equipment in order to take over railroad operations. Ergo, the government does not need deep-sea drilling equipment in order to take over deep-sea drilling operations. Obviously. The government's role is managing the operation to protect the public interests, not to become a deep sea drilling company. Obviously.

How do you get from there to suggesting that I am calling for experts in railroading taking over deep-sea drilling operations?

As I said, that is an embarrassingly weak argument.

[NanceGreggs]

53. "The government does not need deep-sea drilling equipment ...

... in order to take over deep-sea drilling operations."

You're absolutely right. The government can take over operations without any of the necessary equipment to do so.

That's as obvious as the nose on your elbow. They could, of course, just "take over" the equipment already on-site (the legality of doing so be damned), and get Randy Quaid to operate it.

What's embarrassing is your insistence that the spewing of oil into the Gulf could be easily remedied by a gov't takeover.

Why don't you just report back to your people that you tried on DU, but failed - epically so. It happens.

We understand.

[William Z. Foster]

63. I never said that

I have never said or implied that the "spewing of oil into the Gulf could be easily remedied by a gov't takeover."

I said that the public welfare could be protected, regardless of what happens, rather than BP's interests.

[NanceGreggs]

66. And that public welfare ...

... can be protected by a government that has no equipment, nor expertise in the area.

Gotcha.

Give it up, buddy. You've been caught not knowing what you're talking about.

[William Z. Foster]

73. certainly

That has happened many times in the history of the country, and I provided many examples.

You have yet to present an argument to defend your point of view.

Did the government seizure of railroad operations protect the public interest, or did they not? Did the government have any equipment or expertise in the area when the railroads were nationalized? No.

[NanceGreggs]

79. And again I say ...

How can you compare nationalizing railroads to stopping an oil spill, of mammoth proportions, which is taking place in the very the depths of the Gulf?

I'm going to assume, out of an abundance of charity, that you're speaking out of naivete, or simply stupidity.

You started your little diatribe on this thread about how the fact that the US gv't doesn't have the equipment to deal with this disaster is "irrelevant".

So don't talk to me - or anyone else here - about presenting an argument to defend their positions, when your only defense is to change the subject.

Like I said, go back to your people and explain that you did your best, but these DUers have a nasty habit of pointing to facts in order to rebut your "arguments" - and have a penchant for calling out those who change the subject when they're losing an argument.

[William Z. Foster]

82. I didn't

"How can you compare nationalizing railroads to stopping an oil spill, of mammoth proportions, which is taking place in the very the depths of the Gulf?"

I didn't. I compared nationalizing railroads to nationalizing the response to this emergency - and said that neither require the government to "have equipment."

I haven't changed the subject.

[NanceGreggs]

93. Then please explain ...

... how a government takeover of operations in the Gulf stops the leak.

Or is it just WH posturing you're after - the specifics of solving the problem at-hand being of no consequence?

Maybe a "Mission Accomplished" sign over the Gulf will do the trick - or a couple of "We Support the Gulf" bumperstickers?

Give it up, friend. You tried - you failed.

[William Z. Foster]

103. I do not so claim

I never said, and have seen no one say that "a government takeover of operations in the Gulf stops the leak."

I did say that a government takeover would protect the public welfare in all phases of the operation. It isn't a radical position. I suspect that many Republican administrations would have shared this position - Eisenhower, Nixon, maybe even Hoover. Probably Teddy and certainly the Democratic administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ.

How would federalizing the operation interfere in any way with "the specifics of solving the problem at-hand?" How is advocacy for federalizing the operation harmful?

[donco6]

112. It doesn't match what Obama is currently doing.

Ergo, it is evil.

[NanceGreggs]

116. If it won't stop the leak ...

... why are you advocating "federalizing" the operation - especially when you've already announced that having the appropriate equipment to do so is "irrelevant"?

Perhaps you think waving a "We've TAKEN OVER" banner over the WH cures all ills?

We've already survived (just barely) a "president" who thought such PR moves accomplished something - which they didn't.

But, by all means, let's hear it. Explain how the federalization of Gulf drilling at this point stops the leak (and, in case you haven't noticed, that IS the task at hand.)

We already know, thanks to your insight on the matter, that having the equipment to do so is "irrelevant". So what's next, oh wise one?

[William Z. Foster]

118. this is nuts

I never said that "the federalization of Gulf drilling at this point stops the leak."

You keep demanding that I support a position that I haven't taken.

[NanceGreggs]

124. I think the problem might be ...

... that you have no point.

When challenged on what you've said, you respond that you never said it. Or you change the subject.

The fact that you do so was somewhat amusing - for a time.

Sorry. That time is up.

:hi:

[William Z. Foster]

126. ROFL

OK then, see you later. Thanks.

[laughingliberal]

104. Of course, government can' t do anything!

Reagan told us that 30 years ago. These people need to catch up.

[Mimosa]

125. YES, William. This is a crisis which will wreck en ecology forever

Partisan politics should be suspended when a national disaster is happening.

But I think most who are providing talking points do not undertstand the environmental issues. NO EXCUSE. This is serious.

I've studied the coastal environment issues for 25 years. (I'm not happy to admit to being this old) ;)

[BeFree]

24. That was the worst starwman, ever.

You should stick to your day job. <>^griⁿ<>

Government doesn't have the equipment?
They don't? Who does? Who has the equipment?

Surely you are not saying, Dear Nance, that there is no equipment to handle this catastrophe? That, indeed, we are without recourse?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Kindly do point to the USCG ROVs for this mess

and the trained personnel to go with them.

[BeFree]

32. Navy submersibles

Alvin is one.

Do you think the Navy calls on BP to help when one of their subs, mind you, nuclear subs,
gets in trouble? Really? The Navy is not equipped to handle deepwater problems?

The Navy has stuff you will never see or hear about, way deep, way underwater.
And the subs have pressure, great pressure. Steam like pressure.

Go Wiki it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. My hubby is a retired submariner

so he might have a clue. We talked about this. No Alvin don't do this

As is there are already ROV's on scene

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=2

Oh and as he pointed out, fleet subs would be very good to tell you, yep it is gushing.

And DSRV's are again are not designed for this.

Faustian choice, which private contractor do you want to use now?

Reality is, we should have the gear, but we don't

[BeFree]

36. Retired? How long ago?

If the Navy can't do anything, then the Navy should say so.

Of course, if it goes public that BP is more capable than the navy, they might lose some billion$ of funds.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Meanwhile we are all damned. Doesn't that piss you off even for one second?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Four years ago

and the LA Class will tell you, still gushing, yep.

Same for Sea Wolf...

Same for the Ohio Class

mostly they were not designed for this. Now if you want the navy to deliver a few Tomahawks on Target, they are the to call guys.

The DSRVs are not designed for this either. Neither is Alvin... has some manipulation capacity, but very limited

So yes, when it comes to this... the oil companies have a lot of very expensive, proprietary ROVs that we don't have.

And it does not matter if it pisses me... what am I going to do with the information? Well pressuring the US Government to give the USCG all the tools they need for the future would be a good place to start. But that is a future thing. Right now, unfortunately, they have the toys, we don't. The closest guv'ment to have these toys are the Brazilians. I guess if we ask nicely, they might be able to send a few ROV's our way... well the swedes have a few toys too.

But here you go, we are doing the same things we have done every time...

[BeFree]

44. Not designed to do what?

To not float?
Not designed to go deep?

Not designed to manipulate tools that open or close a hole in a sub?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Not designed to work with this

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=2

[BeFree]

48. This what?

Explain what you mean they are not designed to do, please.

Alvin can manipulate tools. The tools are outside the craft. Indeed, the operators of the ROVs are restricted to a video. Alvin crew can do it on sight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Alvin is not designed to work

with the shear, and the oil gusher.

You did click on that, didn't you? You did see the ROV didn't you?

And no Alvin is not designed to work with that. It could be retrofited. How long do we have?

That is the reality we live with right now.

I know ain't popular, but that is the reality.

You can get pissed, or claim that I need to get out of the way, but them are the facts.

And yes, I will take the word of a submariner, over a random online poster.

[BeFree]

55. BP is? What shear? That what?

I'd venture to say BP is obviously not prepared.

I'd also venture to say that most if the tech for ROVs comes from our Navy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Well I guess you are an expert on this

I bow to you.

No use in discussing some of these things RATIONALLY and in the reality based community with some.

[QC]

46. But you gotta admit, the italics were truly stunning. n/t

[BeFree]

57. Methinks

Some people might be largely hung on "the equipment"?

[treestar]

61. That's possible, surely?

Maybe the government really doesn't have it.

You could be stuck somewhere after a huge earthquake and maybe the government will not be able to save you in time.

conceivably you could have a disease no doctor can cure.

[William Z. Foster]

65. sure

The government does not "have the equipment."

We don't look to the government to "have equipment." We look to the government to protect the public interest, and also to exercise its unique power and authority on behalf of the public to direct and command the operation and pull together all necessary resources and personnel.

[BeFree]

71. Is that asking too much?

Are we out of line?

Seems some folks think that our desires for the government to get 'er done, is going overboard?

Look, lets face it, they are just protecting Obama. Why they feel they have too, escapes me, but they are.

[William Z. Foster]

75. not sure

I cannot see how they are helping Obama. Maybe they are just promoting a libertarian agenda, or repeating talking points they heard on cable?

[treestar]

86. You are not accepting reality, that not all things can be solved immediately

and according to your terms.

Obama is not Superman. The government is not Santa Claus.

You will find many things cannot be done. That is life.

[William Z. Foster]

92. WTF

Are you serious?

Wow.

[treestar]

95. yeah, reality is

You have to live in reality.

Wow. You really thing you can demand that your fantasies be real?

Crazy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Well truth be told is that a relief well will take care of this

:-)

But it will take months.

:-(

And it will still be done by those who are responsible for it under US Law.

[treestar]

84. It could be

Do you think everything has a solution and that you are entitled to everything being solved? Suppose you had an incurable disease?

This problem can be solved in a way, but one can't demand it be solved beyond reality.

[BeFree]

91. WTF?

The oil spreading onto the seashore is not an incurable disease.

So, how can the problem be solved, in 'your' reality?

[treestar]

96. It may be to a point

In the sense that it can't be solved right now, the way you want it to be.

[BeFree]

120. My question was... how would you solve this problem?

You are here with an agenda. So what is your solution?

[treestar]

81. But that may not always lead to 100% saving of all

As I said, you could live in LA, be hurt in an earthquake, but so are so many other people, and you sit there a while before anyone gets to you.

You could have an illness medicine can't cure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Well his favorite example is how the Feds

essentially took over during WW II. Conveniently he forgets that the US had essentially two years to spin up from Pearl Harbor. Here we don't have the time

Oh and I have been accused of being a libertarian and pushing that world view for essentially realizing we don't have that time... aka living in the real world.

I also pointed out to him, repeatedly mind you, that we have command of this, through the Incident Commander, Admiral Thad Allen.

We should discuss why we don't have the gear (which another piece of trivia, he don't know was partially developed during WW II since everybody and their sister was sinking oil tankers and said oil was washing on many a shore)... and whether the USCG should have that equipment... which they should.

We can also discuss what private contractor to hire and Thad Allen actually talked to execs from OTHER companies, he mentioned Shell this morning iirc, and that they'd do the same that BP is doing right now.

In the end the solution is a relief well... and the coast guard cannot develop the expertise, or get the gear to do that in time...

Faustian choices and facts are not something he likes.

[William Z. Foster]

54. false

Do you not read my posts? You respond to almost all of them.

I have talked about the USRA - that is WWI not WWII.

I have also talked about NASA, the WPG, the CCC, the USDA, the US Postal Service, the Land Grant college system, the National Park system, the interstate highway system, Amtrak, Conrail, and dozens of other examples of federalized and nationalized programs and emergency responses.

That was all to refute your talking point - "the government cannot run this operation because they don't have the equipment."

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. What do all of these things have in common?

TIME

Which is in short supply right now.

By the way fine talking points you keep throwing... but once again, all these programs and even war time conditions have this little asset you refuse to even consider. TIME.

[William Z. Foster]

67. wrong

Within 24 hours priorities can began being set that align with the public welfare rather than BP's interests and desires.

Nothing that is currently happening need cease.

As soon as word goes out that there will be funding and direction from the feds, people start approaching things differently and things start to move. This is not at the expense of anything currently happening.

My guess is that there are thousands of people with various expertise - as there was during Katrina - champing at the bit and ready to go to work who are now ion the sidelines. We have hundreds of examples as to how the federal government has effectively tapped into that reservoir of talent and given it purpose and direction.

Look through the list of examples I provided and you will see that this is true. In many of those programs, within 24 hours things started happening. Nothing that was already happening stopped, so there was no danger and nothing lost. Do you think that when the USRA was created that all trains came to a screeching halt while we waited for the government to build equipment, train people, and lay track?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Wrong, ok...

I bow to your expertise... after all I KNOW this for a fact, none of these happened in the past in 24 hours.

You know pesky history and all that.

But if you think they can use a magical wand and presto, I bow to your expertise.

Free clue... you know why BP is in charge of oh the cleanup for example... you may want to read on the Exxon Valdez and the laws that govern these messes.

So here is a hint for you... AGITATE, please do, TO CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW. Or would you rather have these boys pull a Bush? And if they did... what expertise?

by the way... another talking point of yours which is kind of ridiculous... exactly what is the benefit for BP in this? Forget the PR problems, what is the ECONOMIC benefit here? I really want to hear this one.

[William Z. Foster]

90. started

I said the ball started rolling within 24 hours. I did not say that everything was accomplished in 24 hours. Of course.

Now we are back to lobbying to change the law? Which law, change it how?

I didn't claim that BP benefits from any of this. I said that they naturally enough would be looking after their interests, as they see them and as they are legally required to do, and not necessarily the public welfare or interests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Their interests is to cap this ASAP

and take care of this ASAP. So you think they want to pull this for months on end?

This is really bad for the bottom line... and company reputation, The fires in Houston were bad for a little while, but boy this is bad.

Here you go, a piece of reality

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SP-downgrades-BP-outlook-in-apf-1887745663.html?x=0


S&P downgrades BP outlook in wake of oil spill
S&P downgrades BP outlook, affirms other ratings, in wake of massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill
ap


Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
BP 41.86 -2.00
Chart for BP p.l.c. Common Stock
MCO 21.15 -0.87
Chart for Moody's Corporation Common Stoc
{"s" : "bp,mco","k" : "a00,a50,b00,b60,c10,g00,h00,l10,p20,t10,v00","o" : "","j" : ""}
The Associated Press, On Friday May 7, 2010, 4:34 pm EDT

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services on Friday downgraded its outlook for BP PLC, citing yet-to-be-determined costs and other issues stemming from the rig disaster and massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The ratings agency revised the British energy company's outlook to negative from stable, but affirmed the AA long-term and A-1+ short-term corporate ratings.

----------

And no, you have no clue how organizations work. No change happened in 24 hours. It took months.

Oh and NASA is a lousy example since that was an organization CREATED ok.

[William Z. Foster]

114. NASA

NASA is an example of a government program being started despite the fact that the government had no equipment - or very little - and little in the way of personnel. You said that was impossible.

So once an organization is started, it take months before anything happens? Ludicrous claim there.

So you are saying that BP will do what's right to protect their bottom line? That is an unvarnished argument for privatization, for libertarian Reaganomics, for the free market and the invisible hand, and you are asking us to trust the public welfare to that.

BP may want to get out of the well capping business for all we know and is hoping for someone else to take charge. It may well be better for BP's bottom line if they screw this up and drag their feet, so that the government will take it over and they can go back to business. Who knows? I would guess that there is total chaos within the organization right now, and they are spinning and doing a CYA and that their PR department is working overtime.

In other words, all sort of time and resources and attention at BP is right now being places on concerns other than the public welfare. Would you doubt that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Personnel we had

you might have forgotten the chief one here, one Werner Von Braun.

Equipment we had, you may not know this, but the V-2 program is the origin of NASA and a few others... of the military kind

What was done was create an umbrella organization and NASA came from a previous Governemtn Organization, not from empty space. But I am sure you knew this, and the first pilots came from the X project later to be passed on for the Gemini and Apollo project personnel

[William Z. Foster]

131. right

Yes, the project operated under a different name and authority initially. I am sure that the government "has" some of the equipment and expertise that it needs to deal with this catastrophe, as well, just as the government had some of the equipment and personnel it needed to start NASA. But it would not have mattered if it did or not. You said that the government could not take over management of this emergency response because it did not "have the gear" and did not have the personnel. I said that was irrelevant, since the government can go out and get what it needs - just as the government went out and got Von Braun, and went out and got the equipment needed for space flight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. We do not have the gear, that is a fact

oil companies do.

That is reality.

You have a problem with facts, don't you?

As Nance said, you are fun, but for a while only.


Though I have to admire your sticking to talking points even after facts are presented.

What facts are fungible to you? I guess they are.

[William Z. Foster]

137. go get it

That is why we have a government in the first place. Rent, borrow, buy - get the equipment needed.

Corporations would have nothing in the fist place without the government, from whom they get their charter and the infrastructure in which to operate.

You are admitting here that you think corporations should be the supreme power, and not government. That is the heart and soul of the extreme right wing liberation political stance.

No one denied that the government does not have the equipment. Government has the power and the authority to see to it that the equipment gets located and used, and that the public welfare is protected.

[BeFree]

122. that is the crux

BP wants to take care of its responsibility as cheap as it possibly can. Profits matter most.

Government, by its very nature is not concerned with profit. And the costs will be born by the responsible party... well, up to $75M, by law.

Bet that at the 75M mark, BP starts fading away. They may already be at 75. How far will they go beyond that?

[treestar]

59. You're going on emotion and have to be really young

there has to be a set up and laws to provide for it.

The federal government might not be able to deal with it.

There are things doctors can't handle either - if you had an incurable disease, they actually would be unable to do anything.

[William Z. Foster]

72. the legal argument again

Why keep presenting arguments that have been so thoroughly debunked?

No one is calling for the government to have equipment, have solutions or anything else. We are calling for those working on the solutions and who have equipment to be accountable to the federal government, not to BP not to a hodgepodge of uncoordinated authorities and private interests.

The Constitution is the only law needed to authorize the government to step in in an emergency and protect the public welfare. The government has a duty to do that. It is the main reason for its existence. We all have a duty to demand that the government do this.

The federal government cannot deal with what? Protecting the public interest? If you are saying that, then you just damned the administration far worse than any critic ever could.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Atually there is law manding this

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/06/oil_spill_law_exxon_liability_issue

Which they are questioning rightly so, but there is law.

So you want the US Government to cavalierly ignore US Law?

Dick Chenney would approve.

[donco6]

115. When the law impedes the protection of our national interests,

then not only do I want them to ignore it, I would expect them to.

And to compare that to the selfish actions of Cheney is ridiculous.

[William Z. Foster]

121. read that

It mostly talks about the liability issue. Did you see something there that relates to this discussion?

[treestar]

89. You are coming from an emotional place

The government protects the public interest, within the confines of the law.

People can get as emotional as they like, but the law must go from logic, that's the point of it - emotion just leads to fighting.

So the government cannot stop this leak right now - that's a reality - no amount of emotion and foot stomping will create a way to solve this leak.

As I said, you'd be screaming at doctors who can't cure you - yet that could happen.

[William Z. Foster]

117. very strange

I did not say, and I have not seen anyone say that "the government can stop this leak right now."

Claiming that another person said something which they did not, so that you can easily refute it, is illogical. It is a straw man argument.

Protecting the public interest is the supreme law that is the basis of the legitimacy for the government, that authorizes the very existence of the government.

[Feron]

7. I live in an affected area and Obama deserves part of the blame.

The federal response is lackluster to say the least.

And destroying a sand berm is a lot easier than trying to rebuild a marsh. Because once those plants die from the oil, the soil is washed away and it becomes open water.

[Mimosa]

12. And destroying a sand berm is a lot easier than trying to rebuild a marsh

Feron, you're right.

Construction of sand berms should have been started at least two weeks ago. *sad*

Whether it's Democratic or Republican administrations MOVE TOO SLOWLY.

I'm watching Thad allen on CNN now. He's AWFUL!!!

[Upton]

8. Why is BP still in charge?

it's a legitimate question to ask...I don't need some Repuke talking points.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Would you prefer Shell or maybe Exxon

and perhaps you missed this, but the IC is Admiral Thad Allen...

[William Z. Foster]

140. misleading and deceptive

People are arguing against privatization, not complaining merely about the particular corporation controlling this. You know that.

You keep throwing Allen's name out there, as though that were a response to the question "why is this operation privatized?" It is not. Also, you contradict yourself. If the feds were in charge - if you thought they were - you would not say "would you rather have Shell or Exxon take over." But then you mention Allen's name again, as though to say that the operation is nationalized.

You have argued both that the operation is privatized, and should be, and then that it is nationalized - depending upon the need at the moment so as to discredit other members.

You say "the government doe not have the gear, so cannot be in charge" and then later say "Allen is in charge." Both of those talking points are false, and they contradict each other.

[Mimosa]

10. Governor Jindal WAS beating up on BP, not Obama.

Governor Jindal WAS beating up on BP, not Obama.

Guess you didn't watch the press conference with Sen. Landrieu, Sec. Napolitano, Jindal and others.

The ACOE is not trusted in Louisiana. Remember how they admitted it was their negligence of the levies for over 20 years which led to the flooding of NOLA?

[Bluebear]

11. Democratic "talking points" are often as useless.

Personally I just want results, not talking points!

[skeptical cynic]

14. I'm only seeing legitimate demands that the federal government

meet its most fundamental reason for existing--protecting citizens.

Our government seems to know no limits when it comes to sending the children of the poor to oil-rich parts of the world to protect "vital national interests." They pull out all the stops and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, much of which goes directly into the accounts of private industry. We're merely asking that the federal government be as aggressive at keeping out out of wetlands.

Building "berms" is a fundamental spill response technique for containing oil and protecting senstitive habitat. The oil is cleary weathered and will easily flow under booms. Look at the pictures of the wetlands where the oil has reached, and ask again if the potential negative effects of building sand barriers could be worse than everything dying.

[ShamelessHussy]

15. it is disgusting how politics have blinded folks to the huge ongoing catastrophe, this is waaaaaaay

beyond Obama. This is not a got damned sporting match, this is life and death, friend.

The cult of personality has warped and twisted your mind without the aide of the POISONOUS GASEOUS erupting down in our Gulf.

:puke:

[amborin]

16. not just stopping the leak, but managing the crisis, cleanup, booms, etc...response is pathetic

[Bitwit1234]

17. I have been posting that to most of the messages here

I do think Obama should have a press conference and tell the public that. And then tell the republicans to shut the hell up........!!!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. Yes. I think as much as Obama professes to hate "the game" you have to play it.

It doesn't matter what you actually do, people want to see something. And truly, the nation deserves to know what steps have been taken.

[The Straight Story]

18. Obama has done an awesome job! Who could possibly say he hasn't, We would say the same about * too

If he had done the same things.

[undeterred]

22. I wouldn't joke about oil fumes causing brain damage.

They probably are.

[Swamp Rat]

30. I agree about the brain damage, but not your explanation as to the cause.

:)

[flamingdem]

31. THANKS! It's becoming a democrat firing squard x 100 around here nt

[BeFree]

35. No it isn't

It is a shot at inept and dawdling government. The kind of government that we thought we just got rid of. The kind that Reagan designed. And we're pissed it still exists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. since you mentiond St. Reagan

he is the reason we lack that equipment. The Coast Guard used to have a lot more assets to deal with things like this. They were actually developed, the main techniques, during WW II, due to all those sunk ships and oil washing on shore.

But we all know what Reagan started, and it's not stopped.

It is time to use the outrage in a productive fashion and start demanding that the USCG and other PUBLIC Agencies have the equipment and trained personnel... aka reverse Reagan's gift...

But right now we are stuck with very Faustian choices, which company do you want to hire?

[BeFree]

41. What company?

A Dutch company. Norwegian. An American would work, too.

People who want to clean up this Beached Petroleum are denied access.
But you knew that.

You may be resigned to puttering on a computer and taking what's given you. The rest of us, not. We've gotten the administration to finally float the boat for shipping BP outta there. And we're gonna get 'er done.

My advice? Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Ah you are chosing to get invovled

exactly what I posted.

Surprise...

That said, good luck, from what Thad Allen said this morning they did talk to other execs to other companies, and they were given the same answers.

Regardless of WHO does this... it is still going to chiefly be private sector, and in the end will be a relief well. That is a year timeline.

[flamingdem]

50. It's counterproductive to dump on Obama when we KNOW what he inherited nt

[Bluebear]

52. Did we say the same with Bush and 9/11?

Just sayin'. Nobody wants to "dump on Obama", people want their government to act.

[Mimosa]

129. Did we say the same with Bush and Katrina?

This is ultimately WORSE THAN KATRINA folks and some simply don't understand.

[William Z. Foster]

138. why would that be?

How could there be a circular firing squad, unless some people were standing on the opposite side of the circle, over with the corporations and libertarians? What are they doing over there? How did they get maneuvered into aggressively arguing an extreme anti-government position?

Of course there are going to be many Democrats who would never go along with the argument being posted and posted here - "the government can't do any more, because they don't have the equipment and expertise, don't have the legal authority, so we must let BP run the show."

Of course there will be massive dissent to that position everywhere other than from extreme right wingers. Was anyone surprised that there was massive resistance to that position?

To accept that argument is to not only contradict the very foundation of the Democratic party and any and all progressive, liberal or left wing politics, but also to deny the principles upon which the country and the government are based. It is an argument that undermines the purpose of the existence of government. It is not merely right wing, it is pre-Enlightenment, pre-Monarchy, almost pre-civilization. People are arguing in defense of some sort of nightmarish corporate neo-feudalism.

[laughingliberal]

83. OTOH, "Government can't do anything," is the PREMIER Republican talking point

Ronnie? Damn! I heard you were dead!

[donco6]

85. So when the government does take over, will your story change?

Salazar already telegraphed this yesterday. So will it suddenly become a GOOD idea then?

[Bluebear]

88. Depends how the fumes are hitting her.

[donco6]

94. That really was rude, huh?

I've seen some nasty shit here in the last few days, but telling people they're high because they don't believe the federal response is adequate is pretty low.

[Bluebear]

97. Any independent thought outside of the football game mentality is "brain damage"

Unreal.

[laughingliberal]

99. We've really got to get that updated dictionary thing going. nt

[QC]

101. Yet the thread is still open and garnering more and more nasty little attacks. n/t

[donco6]

105. It's a coordinated attack this evening.

They must have gotten their marching orders today.

[QC]

108. Yes, you can always tell when the new talking points have been issued. n/t

[Bluebear]

113. What is telling are the poll numbers, since each member gets one vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8407585&mesg_id=8407585

...depsite the issued talking points, you can't say that that much of a majority "never really loved Obama".

[QC]

123. Do you remember a country singer way back named Little Wendy Holcomb?

Her best known song was called "I'm Little But I'm Loud."

[Bluebear]

132. What's her screen name here?

:silly:

[QC]

134. Unfortunately, the poor dear died at 24 from heart trouble.

She seemed really sweet, so I don't think she would be here bullying and shouting at people anyway. He sould play the banjo like nobody's business: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgtQiXTPj_8

I just realized, though, that I made a terrible mistake--the singer in question was actually Little Jimmy Dickens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzcIb64pu08

[Mimosa]

127. The government can coordinate with the state

Donco, Louisana's southern parish officials and people have nearly60 years of experience involving threats to the marshlands. All they need is the money and the go ahead to stop the destruction. Thad Allen, Napolitano and Salazar are allowing BP to determine what strategy is taken. You should watch CNN and listen. ;)

[donco6]

133. I don't disagree at all.

Watching the sheriff down there get so frustrated because he couldn't do what he knows needs to be done - that tells me all Ineed to know.

[Individualist]

107. Snark noted. Unrec.