DEEP WATER HORIZON RESPONSE TEAM

[mzteris]

If you want to know what's going on, this pretty much covers just about everything: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

Make sure to click around. FAQ's. Investigations. Volunteers. Maps. Timelines. Suggestions. Beach/air/water quality. Plans. Operations. Links. Contacts.

pretty much is you have a (legitimate) question, you can probably find (your way to) the answer there.

If you don't like it, don't look at it. But then again, if you really want to know the answer to some burning question, you might just want to take a look around. YMMV


edit to add: you can even file claims via this site.

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Isn't that a BP PR site?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ProSense]

2. No, it's not owned by BP

Joint Information Center
At the beginning of the event, the Coast Guard elevated the response and established a Regional Command Center and Joint Information Center in Robert, La., inviting all partners in the response to join. Get the latest updates from the partners on the ground in the Gulf Coast: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

link

[ShortnFiery]

3. No, but perhaps "attached at the hip?"

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

7. that is an understatement

This is damning.

We are being hustled and lied to on a massive scale. A public relations site is being foisted off as a public information site.

We have had people here - and why do we have people here so aggressively and relentlessly promoting BP's public relations pitch on all of this? - alternately arguing that the response to the disaster should not be taken over by the feds, or then claiming that it is in fact being run by the feds.

Now we find out that the federal involvement - in the critical area of keeping the public informed - is itself privatized.

perhaps the line between where corporations end and government begins is no so blurred, that the BP apologists are right when they say that the government both is and is not in charge.

I was wondering how people could argue so strenuously against federalizing the response to the disaster, and then turn around and claim that the government was heavily involved. The government is heavily involved - on behalf of BP - and the operation is privatized. So both things are in a way true.

[mzteris]

10. how about cooperative effort?

Doesn't it make sense to put all of the information in one place? To have a joint effort. To communicate quickly and freely amongst all the "players" in this debacle?

:sigh:

[William Z. Foster]

4. not quite

It is a public relations operation, and is not a government website.

The site is a long, long way from being a government site - just as is true of the whole operation despite people's attempt to represent it as such.

The site is run by PIER Systems, a public relations and crisis management company.

US Coast Guard and BP Using PIER to Manage Media and Public Information for Deepwater Horizon Response

The US Coast Guard 8th District and BP are actively using the PIER System to manage public information and release news, photos, press releases, incident updates, and videos of oil spill clean-up efforts following the Deepwater Horizon explosion incident. The PIER communications website is located at deepwaterhorizonresponse.com.

http://www.piersystems.com/go/doc/1533/541023/?utm_source=website&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=PIER-Gulf-Response

About PIER

When a crisis or major disaster affects your organization, you must be prepared and ready to respond. During emergency situations, time is crucial. News and information must be accurate, delivered fast, and readily available.

http://www.piersystems.com/go/doctype/1533/30742

PIER provides large corporations and small businesses the ability to manage communications with internal and external stakeholders more efficiently with fewer resources. In this fast-paced world, organizations are expected to react quickly—updating people in real-time is key to successful communication and the reputation of your business.

During a crisis or disaster, organizations must be prepared to notify employees, the media, investors, and the public of current news, warnings, and important updates with powerful communication solutions—PIER's multi-mode, mass notification features provide everything you need to deliver notifications to thousands of people in seconds.

Top corporations including Allstate, Ameren, Boeing, BP International, CB&I, Foundation Coal, Marathon Oil and Valero utilize the PIER System to answer the various communication demands expected from their company.

"When our communications team looked at the lessons we could learn from this terrible incident, the PIER system was seen as an extremely valuable success in helping us provide consistent, timely messages."

- Neil Chapman
BP Communications and External Affairs

PIER Systems is owned by O'Brien's Response Management Inc.

About O'Brien's Response Management (O'Brien'sRM)

O'Brien's Response Management (O'Brien'sRM) was formed in 2008, with the integration of three world-class providers of emergency preparedness, response management and compliance services; The O'BRIEN'S Group, O'Brien Oil Pollution Services (OOPS), and Response Management Associates (RMA). The name O'Brien's has quickly become synonymous with unmatched expertise and experience in the fields of environmental compliance, emergency preparedness (e.g. plans, training and exercises), incident response management, throughout the maritime, petrochemical and energy industries, as well as local, state and federal agencies with responsibilities for emergency preparedness and disaster response.

http://www.obriensrm.com/aboutus.htm

"O'Brien's RM team helped us take charge and lead the response, and at the same time generated a complete and executable IAP—all without missing a beat."

—Incident Manager, Major Oil Company

News Media and Public Relations

"It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.”
- Benjamin Franklin

How much time and effort has your company spent building up its reputation? Is this an investment that you're able to protect? How long do you suppose it would take for an incident to destroy your company's reputation if you weren't prepared?

You have controls in place to manage risks to your other investments and assets, but have you given thought on what you could do to protect the investment your company has made in building and maintaining its reputation?

Incidents can quickly escalate into a business crisis and a business crisis will last as long as there is news media interest in the incident. Is your business ready for global news media scrutiny in the event of an incident involving one of your ships or facilities? Does your company have processes in place and the ability to field a team to respond to an incident and return your business operations to normal as soon as possible? Have you managed this risk?

http://www.obriensrm.com/mediarelations.htm

[mzteris]

15. you left out a few "users"

of Piers:

Government

* Astoria Regional Dispatch
* Atlanta-Fulton County Emergency Management Agency
* Atlanta Urban Area Security Initiative
* City of Atlanta, GA
* City of Austin Office of Emergency Management, TX
* City of Bellingham, WA
* City of Houston Office of Emergency Management, TX
* City of Missouri City, TX
* City of Pasadena, TX
* City of Rosenberg, TX
* City of San Jose, CA
* City of Sugar Land, TX
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9
* Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, TX
* Fort Bend County Human and Health Services Office, TX
* Georgia Emergency Management Agency - Office of Homeland Security
* Gwinnett County, GA
* Harris County Citizen Corps, TX
* Harris County Department of Education, TX
* Harris County Fire Marshal, TX

* Harris County Judge's Office, TX
* Harris County Medical Examiner's Office, TX
* Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services, TX
* Health & Human Services (HHS)
* Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority
* METRO Solutions: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, TX
* Minerals Management Service
* NASA Johnson Space Center
* Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Harris County, TX
* Office of Emergency Management, Fort Bend County, TX
* Office of Emergency Management, Galveston County, TX
* Office of Emergency Management, Kitsap County, WA
* Office of Emergency Management, Montgomery County, TX
* Port of Houston, TX
* Port of Houston Police, TX
* Port of Los Angeles, CA
* Port of Tacoma, WA
* State of Washington Emergency Management Division
* U.S. Coast Guard
* U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
* U.S. Marshals Service
* Utah Department of Public Saftey
* Washington State Poison Control
* Whatcom County, WA

Oil and Energy

* Alpha Natural Resources
* Alaska Tanker Co. Incident Updates
* Ameren
* Bonneville Power Administration
* British Petroleum International
* Calpine Corporation
* Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP)
* Marathon
* Motiva Enterprises
* Puget Sound Energy
* Shell
* STPNOC
* Tesoro Corporation

Corporations

* Advance Chemicals, Ltd.
* Allstate Insurance Company
* Baron & Company
* Boeing
* Darigold
* Hess Industries, Inc.
* Methanex Crisis Communication
* Parsons Corporation
* Pure Communications
* Resource Security Services Inc.
* Weber Shandwick
* WestFarm Foods

Education

* Agnes Scott College
* Bellingham Public School District
* Northwest School
* Spelman College
* University of Houston
* University of North Carolina
* Western Washington University

Healthcare

* Harris County Hospital District, TX

Associations

* Bellingham Angel Group
* Bellingham Dollars for Scholars
* IBOAI
* Southern California Emergency Public Information Officer's Association
* Southern California Industrial Mutual-aid Organization
* Technology Alliance Group
* Whatcom Farm Friends

[William Z. Foster]

26. yes

So what? What does that list tell you? I didn't post that list because it is not relevant to anything.

Disgusting that so many public agencies and institutions are doing this. It is a benchmark of the degree to which privatization has permeated and corrupted our society. We could discus that, if that was what you were after. But that would expand the scope of your thread to much, I think.

[mzteris]

29. I think it's a great idea and not disgusting at all.

The fact that you do is rather - odd, to me. But then again, I find a lot of people to be as odd as they seem to find me. :shrug:

I think this is the way those "institutions" ARE communicating. Isn't that a good thing? Communication?

It occurs to me - I think you've completely misinterpreted this thing.

It's just a WEBPLATFORM. They aren't "writing PR" - read carefully:

PIER was specifically designed to put all vital tools needed by communicators into a single, easy-to-use Web-based platform in order to improve speed, efficiency and information control.

Since its introduction, PIER has become the most widely adopted full spectrum on-demand communication management technology.

From its initial base of users focused on crisis communications, PIER has expanded to include all urgent and critical communication applications in both large and small organizations.

Unlike other products which offer only individual capabilities, PIER has it all—in one fully integrated system. Every feature of PIER works as a stand-alone or partnered with other functions. This efficiency saves you time, money and resources while making management simple and easy.
Improve the Way You Deliver Information

PIER provides flexible solutions for handling relations with internal and external stakeholders—making it easier than ever to deliver messages, streamline internal processes, automate tedious tasks, prevent inaccuracy and eliminate duplicated efforts.
Mobile and Remotely Available

Because the PIER System is web-based, it is available all over the world—on Internet enabled computers, mobile phones or PDAs. In the event of disaster or disruption, your business can successfully provide information and maintain operations with minimal interruption.


IT'S A DELIVERY SYSTEM. NOT a PR firm!

okay - here it is more specifically:

UASI organizations use PIER for managing communications during emergency situations, as well as for day-to-day communications with critical stakeholders. Because PIER is internet-based, information can be distributed quickly. Integrated tools streamline the communication process and allow personnel to collaborate regardless of location.

During a crisis or disaster, UASI organizations can quickly set-up a NIMS compliant, virtual Joint Information Center (JIC) using the PIER System. Dispersed teams from multiple jurisdictions can share information, make plans of action, and collaborate on projects before delivering urgent messages to the public. PIER’s inquiry management features allow for continual, interactive, two-way communication with employees, collaborative organizations, elected officials, community leaders, the public, media and more.

With PIER, public information officers can coordinate efforts and streamline the approval and distribution process. PIER’s document approval system allows teams to draft, edit and send documents to command staff for approval. Once approved, documents can be distributed via email, fax, SMS text message, automated phone message, RSS feeds, and social media networks including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. PIER also serves as an information reservoir for critical documents, contact information, and records of interactions.

[William Z. Foster]

31. PIER is great

I am not attacking PIER.

[William Z. Foster]

5. yes

The fact that government agencies are associated with it shows us that the government has been dragged into and is complict with BP's ongoing public relations blitz. We have government employees parroting the BP propaganda line, and we have people here claiming that this "proves" that the government is doing something and that critics should shut up.

The government is "doing something" alright - government agencies are helping BP manage their image and public relations and dupe the public.

[mzteris]

9. nope. it's not. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

28. that isn't the point

It is not a government site, either.

What is it exactly? That is the question.

Of course BP wants to be one step removed from that site, so it is understandable that they would want it to appear "neutral" and official. But are we OK with government agencies participating in that sort of thing?

Is it official or is it not? The very fact that we have to ask that question is cause for extreme suspicion and skepticism.

[mzteris]

32. The site is just a site - like a newspaper...

The "group" - does what all groups do when faced with a crisis. They HAVE to communicate with each other. Who has what. Who's done what? Who is GOING to do what? What's the status of x, y, z? Will abc happen tomorrow at 10 am or 2 pm? Who's going to be responsible for this or that? Where can I find out _______? Who has _______ available? WTF did THAT? WhereTF are those ---------s you said were on the way!

That kind of thing.

There is nothing nefarious about coordinating efforts in a crisis. You HAVE to do that. Else it would be even MORe of a clusterf than it is already.

Look, when you have dozens of agencies/companies running around in a volatile situation you've GOT to have a clearinghouse, a central command center - or there would nothing but utter chaos. Joe has to know what Sam is doing and Sara needs a heads up that Joe is or is not going to be able to deliver those (things) until day after tomorrow.

Is this beginning to make sense to you?

[William Z. Foster]

42. I understand what you are saying

All I ask is that you understand - not necessarily agree, but understand - what I am saying about this.

Coordinating efforts in a crisis - yes, that is necessary.

A central command center - no problem.

Getting information to the public - yes.

I understand that PIER is in theory a neutral tool (although are we sure that they are not also advising on public relations? We should look into that) but it is a private tool run on a private server by a company that does help private companies, including BP, with public relations.

All of that is fairly obvious, and no cause for any dispute.

What I think has happened is that people have forgotten, or have never seen what a government operation looks like. They think that so long as "the job gets done" that it doesn't make any difference if private companies take a leading role, or "partner" with government agencies.

One more time, here is what I am saying: the federal government needs to be in complete command and control of the emergency response to the catastrophe. As I said, I think people have forgotten or never knew what that means and what that would look like. That is an effect of the generalized trend toward privatization, and weakening of government (other than police and military operations, for which unprecedented funding and virtually unlimited authority are now available to government) and public acceptance of that dramatic change. Since privatization and weakening of government are the cause of catastrophes such as the one we now face, it has both immediate as well as long term negative consequences for this operation to be privatized to any degree whatsoever.

Many people seem unable to even understand this vital point, and that in and of itself is significant and alarming. I predict that within 5 years just about everyone will have re-learned this - the hard way.

People are saying "prove that government is good" and "prove that privatization is bad." That is backward. That attitude undermines and sabotages the very concept and purpose of having government.

I do now think that people who are alternately claiming that the operation is privatized and should be, and then that it is federalized - more or less or sort of - are in a way correct. The line between corporations and government is now so blurred that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. But that is not something we should accept, or argue vigorously to defend as people are doing here.

People must be paying a lot of attention to mass media, because that is where these themes are coming from. I did notice today that the things people are saying here are word-for-word what the White House is saying, and all of the pundits are repeating, so people no doubt want to be loyal to and supportive of that since there is a Democratic administration in power. The only alternative ideas the mas media is offering are partisan whining and harping and back-biting from Republicans, so people naturally enough reject that and then feel obligated to parrot the White House and mass media.

However, more and more people are starting to see that this privatization model for everything is not working, and has failed spectacularly, particularly in the response to the disaster in the Gulf. I think that even the President himself may well be questioning the approach now. So we are not necessarily being disloyal to the President, nor are we helping the Republicans, to speak out against privatization in all of its insidious and pervasive forms. It may be the best favor we could do for the administration, since privatization is a grave threat to the success of the administration, as well as to the general public.

Were there to be a broad and loud public outcry against privatization, the administration may well change course and that would not only be the best thing for all of us, it would be the best thing for the administration, for the ultimate success of the administration and the President.

[mzteris]

44. thank you for your response, William

I appreciate your civility.

We do agree on the first part.

I do understand your concerns - and it's not that I dismiss them, nor that I give the "powers that be a complete pass", but I do (want to) trust the Obama administration to do the right thing. And yeah, I do want to believe that even a "corporation" can understand that it is in their BEST INTEREST to do their damndest to correct the situation, even IF none of the humans involved in said corporation haven't the slightest whiff of moral fiber.


As far as "privatization" is concerned - I do see some pros as well as the cons. In this day and age of extreme specialization, it is unrealistic to expect the gov to keep all of those specialists on the payroll. (And no, I'm not just talking about this incident.) I don't think it's feasible to have "experts" on everything sitting around on the government payroll 24/7 when the need for them exists only occasionally, if at all - although, if needed, that "need" is immediate and profound.

Does that make sense? I mean, - to use this catastrophe as an example - the gov is NOT in the "oil business" (at least it SHOULDN't BE!) - so when the time comes to "fix the problem" - they don't HAVE the expertise so they have to bring in an "expert" from private enterprise. I don't think you COULD keep an expert on the payroll. How much of an expert would they be if they weren't actively involved in the business day-to-day?

I guess I'm thinking out loud here. I usually "talk" to think - and it's not often a poster understands the process. To "dialogue" as it were, in order to problem-solve.

We want the same thing. Just figuring out how to get there is the trick.

[William Z. Foster]

46. thanks

I am following you. Thinking out loud - no problem.

May I respond to a couple of your points? Just consider what I am saying is all I ask.

You say "it is unrealistic to expect the gov to keep all of those specialists on the payroll" and I agree. At issue is whom those experts answer to for the duration of the crisis - a corporation or the government.

You say "I do (want to) trust the Obama administration to do the right thing" and so do I. But we could have the greatest person in the office that ever lived, and they could do nothing without pressure form us. That is how politics works in a representative democracy. If only the right wingers and the corporations are pressuring a politician - and believe me they are 24 hours a day - then only the right wing and corporate agenda will be considered. That has been happening.

We are not being "loyal" to the President, nor are we doing him any favors to remain silent. Imagine a sports coach who selected their players, and then locked themselves in a room and covered their ears and repeated "I trust my players, I know they are good, I am sure they will do the right thing, they are a lot better than those other players on that other team" and stayed silent for fear of "hurting" them by criticizing them? That would be a losing coach.

The government is "in the oil business" - most definitely, since oil is such a critical issue involving public welfare.

You say "I do want to believe that even a 'corporation' can understand that it is in their BEST INTEREST to do their damndest to correct the situation."

A corporation does not exist in that way, and cannot "understand" anything. That is the main reason that corporations, of all private entities, should never be allowed anything that threatens public safety and welfare. The people running the corporation do not necessarily have the best interests of the corporation at heart, let alone the best interests of the public. There are numerous examples of CEOs running a company into the ground and leaving with a golden parachute. The only goal is to maximize return on investment in the shortest term. Period. That as often as not means leaving the company, the employees, the public, and the environment utterly destroyed. That is how you extract the greatest return in the shortest time - slash and burn, pillage and plunder. Whoever does that will see their stock go up, up, up, and the investors will always gravitate to the most ruthless operators in order to maximize their return. Whoever does not do that will watch their competitors do that and will soon be out of business. That is not merely a feature of the game, it is the purpose of the game - it IS the game.

It is not in the corporation's best interest to protect public welfare. Corporations protect their shareholders - Wall Street. They have a legal responsibility to do that first and always.

If the interests and needs of the shareholders were the same as the interests and needs of the general public, we would likely not have this catastrophe in the first place. The interests and needs of the shareholders are more often than not oppositional the interests and needs of the general public. Wall Street very often rewards shareholders mightily exactly when corporations - the people running the corporations - act in the worse possible way toward the general public. It is the nature of the game - they win when and as we lose.

[William Z. Foster]

6. kick

This site is being promoted as a rebuttal to critics of the response to the disaster and the relative inaction and weak and ineffective response by the federal government.

It is not a government site. People need to see what this is.

[mzteris]

12. why do you hate information?

It is NOT a "BP" site.

I cannot see why you don't understand the premise of this website. It puts everything anyone could possible want to know or complain about in one place.

Whatev floats your boat, I guess.

[alfredo]

16. Sometimes, when no other tactic works, people do the right

thing. I'd like think they did it on their own, but it could be the on the advice of their PR firm. I'm still reserving opinion on motives, or if they are doing the right thing.

They are facing crushing fines, loss of business, and suits that could destroy them, it would do them little good to act like dick-heads.

[mzteris]

18. I think this is the way crises management is

supposed to work. And probably HAS been working in the past - just now, it's transparent and the process is available for all to see.

The very thing that people have been screaming for : INFORMATION! FACTS - not rumour and conjecture. A place to go to find answers. To lodge a complaint. To ask questions. To make suggestions. To volunteer. To rant, if you want.

I don't know what the problem is really.

Maybe some didn't actually read through the site like I suggested.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. yeah some of the really dirty laundry is out there

too...

[William Z. Foster]

23. sure

That is the way crisis management is supposed to work. Corporations do it all the time - they manage the crisis so that they minimize the impact on their profits and image and share value.

[mzteris]

24. so cynical, Billy.

:(

[William Z. Foster]

30. you think?

Three things -

First, it is very suspicious, right on the face if it, that we are being directed to that site. I assumed we were being sent to a .gov site - of course. Instead it is a public relations management site. That is suspicious - no way around that.

Second, we have good cause to be suspicious, to be "cynical" as you characterize it, given the recent events we have seen and given the threat to public health and welfare.

Third, it is our job, out duty, to be suspicious of the powerful, to be cynical about the motives of the rulers and the wealthy, particularly when they have so much at stake and such good cause for misleading us.

I would say that the problem is that too many of us are so trusting, not that any of us are suspicious or "so cynical."

[alfredo]

41. The corporate world has done little to gain our trust, so I don't blame

people for thinking the worst.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. More like their lawyers advised them to

the feds are handcuffed by the 1990 law, but to a point so is BP.

The first instinct of these guys is to hide, not share.

[alfredo]

40. Lawyers know that if they can't show innocence, they can soften the blow

when it comes to sentencing. Honesty does help.

[William Z. Foster]

22. I provided information

Why would you say I don't like information? I am trying to get more people here to read the information.

You say "I cannot see why you don't understand the premise of this website. It puts everything anyone could possible want to know or complain about in one place."

You betcha. Superb public relations effort there, done by experts at managing public perceptions and protecting corporations.

Putting "everything anyone could possible want to know or complain about in one place" - in other words, you are agreeing that is the purpose of the site. To manage and control and corral public reaction. Amazing.

[mzteris]

27. If that's the way you want to spin it,

like I said, whatever floats yer boat.

I happen to like the idea and I'm a thinking most others do, too.

Did you READ the information on there? They aren't just posting the prettied up stuff. Some of it's downright ugly.

But if you'd rather get your news from say - Fox - or try and contact all of those agencies to try and find out what it is you need to know, then by all means, just ignore the website. You can search for the individual "contact" information on every single damn website - if you can find it. And then guess what, your question will get to the very same person who would have gotten it had you used this one.

Geez. People want information so they give them information and then those same people complain about the fact that they're giving 'em information. :crazy:

[William Z. Foster]

34. oh, I think it is a huge success

I am sure that people are just loving it.

Sort of "government lite" for the democracy-impaired.

I am not one who has said "I want information." I have been demanding total federal control over the operation.

I am not going to ignore the website. I am going to use it the way a detective would when tracking a criminal.

You are all but admitting that the purpose in your mind for this site is to be a STFU to critics. That is more cause for suspicion.

[mzteris]

37. I ADMITTED that it was a place you coud go

to FIND OUT INFORMATION. Go be your detective. They just made your job a little bit easier.

[William Z. Foster]

45. you keep missing what I am saying

Not sure why.

[William Z. Foster]

8. kick again

Trying one more time here. If this doesn't work, it will be made an OP.

[mzteris]

14. thanks!

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I got a bunch of INGORED, so perhaps there is a reason for that

I applaud you for trying though.

[mzteris]

13. Maybe I should get some of that,

too.

Then MY "BP" wouldn't go up. lol


He even posts himself that it's not a BP site and then turns around and says it's tainted. I don't get that thinking at all.

Having a central point of information exchange is probably one of the best steps anyone could have possibly done in this situation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Well it don't help with our media

to paraphrase tweeety... I don't get the command structure on this, I mean why not use the Military one!!!!!!

I was like... IT IS THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM... I will grant tweety this, he don't get it, but to say that there is no command and control... and now AC 360 is DOING THE SAME FUCKING THING.

[William Z. Foster]

20. thanks for kicking it

Too bad you are ignoring, because this gets right to the heart of your contradictory arguments - that the response should not be federalized, and then that it already is.

[merh]

25. It's all a load of horseshit.

I'm here, have been a volunteer (who attended training May 1) and have still not heard a word, they still have don't nothing to protect our shorelines, the mayors and county leaders don't know what the feds and the state have planned.

Purdy website but that is all it is about, nice PR, looks good don't it.

Think dispersant for the bad images and the clusterf's.

[mzteris]

33. did you read through it?

if you have questions, there's probably an answer in there for you somewhere. Or someone to contact if there isn't. Take a look around. Read ALL of the sections to find out what it is that you "haven't heard".

[William Z. Foster]

35. do it yourself government

AND your government is in partnership with the perps! Whee. What could be more convenient?

We know what we "haven't heard." The truth. There is no reason to believe we will find it there. None.

[merh]

36. That website is a bunch of crap

Those of us who live here have been calling those numbers, have been asking the questions, have visited every website, including this one, imaginable.

Look at the Louisiana coast, their marshes.

Do you think those people sat quiet, that they didn't have any questions, they didn't go to at least one of the hundreds of meetings that have been held to tell us "it's all under control".

I'm telling you as someone living along the coast, the website is like the dispersant, it is all about image and not a whole hell of a lot about substance.

[mzteris]

38. Do you mind my asking

what have you called about? What questions do you have? Which numbers/emails did you use? Did you get NO response or not the response you wanted? How many people, do you think, has also done these things - what do you think the volume is?

I'm sincerely asking because I would like to know if this is just a "pretty site" without meat behind it, ya know?

[merh]

39. Of course I am not going to take the time to list who I have

called and who I talked to and how many times I have called - blah, blah, blah.

If you don't care to respect my opinion, the opinion of someone who lives here and is trying to deal with this, then fine and fucking dandy.

No skin off my nose. I could care less if you truly respect and care about the people of the coast.

You might want to follow the local papers, you can read for yourself the frustrations of the people actually impacted by this and their frustration with the government - on both the federal and local/state level.

[mzteris]

43. I was geniuinely asking, not challenging you.

I'm sorry if you thought I was being disrespectful to you. I really did want to know what about this site was not working. It seems to be a good idea to me, but if there are facets of it that are not working then I'd like to know that, too.

I really am sorry you're having to go through all this. I spent my summers on the Gulf and then lived in Mobile for a while, too, and I have family in Tampa, so don't think I don't care about what is going on. don't think I don't want this mess fixed ASAP and the perps held accountable. That we seem to disagree on how to best accomplish that seems a bit beside the point to me and not cause for rancor. I'm trying to "help" the only way I can right now, which is to try and get correct information out there and debunk the bullsh*t.

I'm sure if I weren't living 1114 miles away - without a job, two kids, and very little in the way of $$, I'd be doing more.