My understanding is that what this article says is basically correct, even if the guy who wrote it is an idiot.

Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities? Can anyone enlighten a clueless European?

Quote: Original post by Wan
Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities? Can anyone enlighten a clueless European?

Someone should put Truman's desk sign on Obama's desk, since he obviously needs that constant reminder.

Quote: Original post by Wan
Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities? Can anyone enlighten a clueless European?

He is responsible for some of the mistakes being made, but yes there are other federal players that are fucking up too. If you notice, the original article doesn't even finger the president or the executive branch directly, that's an assertion by Prune, the OP.

This is funnier. Shows how far our technology has advanced in 30 years.

Quote: Original post by Wan
Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities?

The question of responsibility falling on the president as opposed to his subordinates is far too hairy and subjective to answer usefully, but local authorities have very little to do with the drilling operation itself. Water rights that far from the coast are owned by the federal government rather than the states. I'm not sure how state/federal resources are being apportioned with regards to shore cleanup, though.

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool

Quote: Original post by Wan
Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities? Can anyone enlighten a clueless European?

He is responsible for some of the mistakes being made, but yes there are other federal players that are fucking up too. If you notice, the original article doesn't even finger the president or the executive branch directly, that's an assertion by Prune, the OP.

If that article is even 50% true, then Obama screwed up. Granted I can understand wanting to train people here in the US for this sort of thing. But do it in parallel or do it after. Not before you address a catastrophe.

I don't know why the US refuses foreign help. Especially foreign help that's superior to our own. They could take a lesson from China. People with more knowledge can come into China and set up shop. But they can only do it, if they are willing to share and teach the know-how. Afterwards, the Chinese improve on that and become the experts in that field.

In any case, hopefully this whole thing gets resolved and the protocol gets fixed and the equipment and training becomes readily available. We, obviously, learned nothing from Katrina. The South Coast is constantly getting screwed by their own Gov't... and nature.

Quote: Original post by Prune

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Source Watch: Lawrence Solomon

ad hominem much?

Do you always believe boys who cry wolf?

Quote: Original post by Prune
Also, all of your partisan links ignore addressing the 15 ppm requirement for water purity returned to the ocean by separation machines. This has been verified to be an issue in multiple news outlets including the NYTimes, and it has enormously reduced the overall volume of oily water processed and Obama is directly responsible for not immediately blocking the regulation in a huge disaster. I don't mean to imply malice, just timidity and/or incompetence.

It looks like you didn't read the quote from the CSM article. "A month into the crisis, the EPA backed off those regulations" Now, let's do some calendar math. The Deepwater Horizon blew up on April 20. One month later was May 20. The article that you find so compelling was published June 26. If multiple news outlets including the NYT verified the issue, ask yourself why one month after that Lawrence Solomon was pushing misinformation on the subject? Then ask yourself why you find him a credible source of information and why you dismiss CSM, AJC, LAT and NBC as partisan news sources. I would put it to you that you're being partisan. A month into the crisis BP was only beginning to acknowledge that more than 1000 barrels were gushing from the well each day. By lying about the scale of the gusher they enormously reduced the overall response to the crisis. As I wrote above, Obama should never have trusted BP's claims about the size of the gusher, or their ability to cap it or clean up the mess. Funny thing there, during the Bush administration trusting what corporations said was touted as the ultimate in Presidential competence. Now the same people who used to applaud that kind of naivete deplore it.

Quote: Original post by Prune
I'm amused by the revenge downratings I'm getting here by rabid left-wingers (even though neither of the tags on the rate down selection, "Very unhelpful and/or unfriendly" apply here). You guys need to realize that these ratings matter a fraction of what Slashdot karma does, and what is a fraction of zero?

Bitching about ratings is a sure fire way to see them fall, quickly, like a ton of bricks.

Quote: Original post by Prune

Quote: Original post by Wan
Regardless whether these allegation are true or not, how much can be blamed on the president directly? I realize he bears the ultimate responsibility, but what about federal and local authorities? Can anyone enlighten a clueless European?

img src="http://worshippingchristian.org/images/blog/buck_stops_here.jpg"

Someone should put Truman's desk sign on Obama's desk, since he obviously needs that constant reminder.

If Obama pursued a policy course anything like Truman did, your counterparts in the US would be screaming bloody murder. Truman wanted single payer health care. He tried to nationalize the steel industry and he integrated the military and he went after war profiteers with a vengeance. Don't make comparisons that you don't know anything about.

Quote:
In the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you were wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen right away or the way I’d like it to happen. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to make mistakes. But there shouldn’t be any confusion here: The federal government is fully engaged, and I’m fully engaged.

Remarks by the President on the Gulf Oil Spill, May 27, 2010

[Edited by - LessBread on July 9, 2010 10:10:55 PM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
your counterparts in the US would be screaming bloody murder. Truman wanted single payer health care. He tried to nationalize the steel industry and he integrated the military and he went after war profiteers with a vengeance. Don't make comparisons that you don't know anything about.

My counterparts? I agree with single-player health care. I'm not for nationalizing the steel industry, but I'd sure be for nationalizing the Wall Street investment banks that were closest to the maelstrom of 2008, and arguably caused it. Don't make assumptions about people whom you don't know anything about.
I am neither a republican nor democrat, neither a conservative nor a liberal. Your pigeonholing based on the glimmers of the worldviews of posters you gather from this forum is the worst kind of stereotyping and generalization. You should be ashamed.

What is my actual position then? I believe that common sense is not that uncommon, such as the lack of public recognition that democracy is a failure. The intransitivity of voting preferences and other paradoxes of voting systems are not mere mathematical tricks, but clear signs that it makes no sense to assign preference to a population; it is only a well-defined concept when applied to individuals. Add to this the fact that the intersection of sets of majorities of a population chosen by a large set of issues is not going to be a majority itself in any sizable population, and the verdict on democracy is even more damning. Something more akin to imperial meritocracy is needed. So you see? Your assumptions about my sociopolitical views hold zero water.