Oh the Irony

[Loki]

And you're basing this on one article? Interesting.

[GGT]

And you're basing this on one article? Interesting.

Small tangent in parentheses, that's all. Now how about that oil?

[Ominous Gamer]

Boston's famous Big Picture gets up to speed with the oil spill hitting land.



Do we have a rage emoticon yet?

[Loki]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

If only we had more regulations.

[EyeKhan]

Or enforced the ones we have...

[Loki]

Creating new regulations is a great way to enforce old ones.

[EyeKhan]

Creating new regulations is a great way to enforce old ones.

No it isn't.

Hey, would you mind laying out your personal position on off shore drilling? What do you think the policy should be going forward, what should change given this accident, and so on?

[GGT]

Those pictures.....

[Loki]

No it isn't.

Hey, would you mind laying out your personal position on off shore drilling? What do you think the policy should be going forward, what should change given this accident, and so on?

I think the government should enforce its own regulations instead of pretending that new ones are a solution. Meanwhile, it should make BP pay not only the cleanup costs, but also punitive damages for negligence, and fire and put on trial all employees who forged the documents.

[Ominous Gamer]

Those pictures.....

Yeah, kind of blows wide open BP's stance last week that the spill impact would remain very modest.
BP's mile long tube is also failing. Sucking up at about 30% its best 24 hour rate so far.


I can't wait till the independent flow figures come out next week. Think I'll wait till then before I ask Dread if he still trusts BP.

[EyeKhan]

I think the government should enforce its own regulations instead of pretending that new ones are a solution. Meanwhile, it should make BP pay not only the cleanup costs, but also punitive damages for negligence, and fire and put on trial all employees who forged the documents.

Questions on specifics:

How about the rig operator and Haliburton? With the puntative damages, I mean. If there was negligence all around, should they all be held responsible or just BP because they were the umbrella company contracting those other guys and therefore ultimately responsible?

As far as going forward, you do you think the current regulatory structure for off shore drilling is enough? In other words, had everyone been doing what they were supposed to be doing, would the accident not have happened? And if it did happen anyway, say by other means, what about the inability to plug this leak? Is that a result of something BP/subs didn't do? Or have we all just found out the hard way that nobody knows how to stop leaks like these?

[Loki]

Questions on specifics:

How about the rig operator and Haliburton? With the puntative damages, I mean. If there was negligence all around, should they all be held responsible or just BP because they were the umbrella company contracting those other guys and therefore ultimately responsible?

As far as going forward, you do you think the current regulatory structure for off shore drilling is enough? In other words, had everyone been doing what they were supposed to be doing, would the accident not have happened? And if it did happen anyway, say by other means, what about the inability to plug this leak? Is that a result of something BP/subs didn't do? Or have we all just found out the hard way that nobody knows how to stop leaks like these?

Do a study to investigate the degree of culpability for all actors involved. Then divide the fine based on those numbers (i.e. if Haliburton is 10% responsible, they pay 10% of the fine).

From what I've read, if all the required measures were in place, this wouldn't have happened, so I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. BP has to be punished to the full extent of the law, however, to scare other companies into compliance.

[GGT]

(CNN) -- Coming back this weekend after a stay in Europe, I had that distinct sensation -- last felt when Lehman Brothers capsized, setting off the Great Recession -- that we once again find ourselves at the mercy of events and people just beyond our control.

Here at home, one hears that by Wednesday dawn, we will know whether BP's latest big try to stop the oil spill will work. If it does, we can begin to feel that we are moving in the right direction, but if it doesn't -- well, no one is quite sure what Plan D looks like. Is this really where we have come: that the fate of our precious coastlines and the waters off our coasts are in the hands of a single foreign-based company?

A month ago, it looked like the White House was on top of this problem, as Cabinet officers scurried here and there, the Coast Guard and others swung into action, there were talks with BP, and the president paid a personal visit. But increasingly, it has become apparent that the federal government may be present but is not in charge.

It keeps saying that BP bears ultimate responsibility. It is keeping the press away. No wonder James Carville, Chris Matthews and Donna Brazile exploded late last week. They are right on a basic point: Ultimately it is not the responsibility of BP or any other company to protect American interests but the responsibility of the federal government. Some Obama supporters have argued that the 1990 Oil Pollution Act limits the president's capacity to take action. Others disagree. Either way, in an emergency, laws can be changed.

Although this disaster is not an existential threat, it could be argued that if the U.S. government had fought World War II in the same way it has fought the oil spill, we might well be speaking German now. Faced with a growing danger to our well-being, a WWII-type government would at minimum have:

• Brought in the CEOs of all the major oil companies and charged them with the duty of an all-hands collaborative effort to stop the spill and help ward off the damage.

• Brought in the best minds in the country, from universities and technology, for emergency efforts to find solutions.

• Moved quickly to mobilize the National Guard and other military forces, if necessary, ensuring that they received the resources needed to protect our beaches.

• Made a clear call to citizen volunteers to help where necessary.

• Given Cabinet officers an ultimatum: Get this under control in the next 30 days, or else.

There will be ample time after this disaster for finger-pointing and blame-laying. The key now is to get this spill under control before it does far more damage.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post had it exactly right Monday morning when it argued that with the European crisis spreading now beyond Greece, "the knife-edge psychology currently governing global markets has put the future of the U.S. economic recovery in the hands of politicians in an assortment of European capitals."

Across Europe, one finds people stunned at the rapidity with which this crisis has grown, threatening not only their weak economies but also their dreams of a European utopia with people living a honeyed existence. All that could go smash now. Indeed, it is ironic that Europe may now be forced to give up its strong welfare state even as the U.S. is moving toward it. But the immediate point is that the U.S. finds itself too much at the mercy of whether European politicians and publics now make the right moves.

It may take a while, but Americans are going to start feeling a lot happier about our country when we once again believe we have strong control of own destiny. Leadership, anyone?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Gergen.

[Ominous Gamer]

You know you're in a shit position when insane conservatives like "Drill Baby Drill!" Palin, who slept with a BP employee for 18 years, tries to give herself some distance by attacking the President's oil connections.
Or when you're stock is at a 52 week low.
Or when your directors get sued by your investors over the costs of cleaning up after your company.

These must be fun days for BP, sadly I appear to have misplaced my sympathy.

[Being]

Top Kill was delayed. If you guessed it was because the oil line is still erupting in new locations, you win a cookie

and yet the GOP has blocked, for the 2nd time, raising the financial responsibility cap of disasters like this from 75 million to 10 billion.

I doubt that $10 billion will even cover this one.

[']['ear]

@ David Gergen attacking Obama about the oil spill. Yo, Dave! Your boss was in office at the end of the energy crisis, and failed to do jack shit about it! If we were now sitting on 30 years of aggressive energy research, we wouldn't be engaging in shortsighted idiocy like tapping massive aquifers of toxic chemicals under the ocean, right of our coasts.

The criticism of Obama's lack of leadership on this may be valid, though given the fact the the right is attacking him as being "anti-corporate" because of his current wimpy actions, I suspect that any action would be damned, particularly Gergen's plan. But Gergen's pals have blocked alternative energy at every step for 30 years. If Obama must be criticized on this, that's fine. But NOT from the likes of Gergen. The hypocrisy is enough to make me puke.

[Dreadnaught]

You mean "corporation". It's fine and dandy to put out hits on private citizens, but Heavens forbid the president dear speak out against someone trying to earn a buck in this topsy-turvy world

If the President talks about putting his foot on the throat of anyone, I think it's over the line. I'm talking about appropriate rhetoric in a democracy.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think it's over the line. I'm talking about appropriate rhetoric in a democracy.

Because calling everyone in the world who doesn't bend to US politics a terrorist is so much better?

Isn't that kind of rhetoric even beyond what Bush used to use for terrorists?

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

[Dreadnaught]

And was Bush not criticized for that? So then were is the criticism of Obama for his rhetoric?

[Ominous Gamer]

And was Bush not criticized for that? So then were is the criticism of Obama for his rhetoric?

so now you remember Bush didn't display your proper sense of rhetoric? Guess thats a step in the right direction.

I'm just pointing out that you have been rather odd in what you consider offensive, extreme, or improper. From getting upset about not understanding Kick-Ass, to be confused about Inglourious Basterds being a gore-fest, to a president, thats famous for his speeches, using words you think are to strong. You're not exactly a middle-of-the-road unbiased observer, so don't act surprised when the only people you agree with are the nutjobs that freaked out when Obama went for the fancy mustard.

[Dreadnaught]

Dude, I didn't see Kick Ass or Inglorious Basterds. I don't find them offensive or extreme. I never fucking saw them. I know my lack of being offended (or caring) confuses and bothers you, but you need to get over this fact.

The debate about Bush's rhetoric was wide and lively back in 2001. And now a similar debate should be happening now. Obama's rhetoric has been an issue from the start because he's now more than just "famous for his speeches". He's the President, and he is supposed to help set the tone of discussion in politics. Considering how he campaigned on changing the tone and methods of Washington, he isn't helpful when he conjures the image of him crushing the larynxes of various organizations.

What if he used the same language about Waco? About illegal immigrants? About power utilities? About any kind of law breaker or organization that he doesn't like?

You're the one being "rather select in what you consider offensive, extreme, or improper" because you like what he's saying. Yet you utterly fail to ever think of the bigger picture of what makes our society work. There is a social and political climate that allows you to enjoy watching Kick Ass, instead of having to smuggle it past the morality police. But you're numb to this reality because you're too busy fretting over how my 95+ year old grandma described Inglorious Basterds to me.

[GGT]

@ David Gergen ...

Someone had to say it, I personally don't care who. It's been over 30 fricking days, and they're still waiting for BP to fix their mess.

[Being]

The debate about Bush's rhetoric was wide and lively back in 2001. And now a similar debate should be happening now. Obama's rhetoric has been an issue from the start because he's now more than just "famous for his speeches". He's the President, and he is supposed to help set the tone of discussion in politics. Considering how he campaigned on changing the tone and methods of Washington, he isn't helpful when he conjures the image of him crushing the larynxes of various organizations.

BP was given a chance to regulate itself. During that experiment BP chose profits over safety on more than one occasion. Now the world will pay for their failure to live up to their promise of self-regulation. This is not a catastrophe as small and inconsequential as Exon. How do you feel about that? Personally, I feel that putting them out of business (crushing their larynx) is going too easy on them. I truely believe the individuals responsible for the decisions leading to this deserve the maximum punishment at our disposal. And I mean individuals, not the corporation which just passes the punishment on to consumers. Without individual accountability corporations feel no pain from "punishment". Punishing corporations is a joke on consumers.

[Nessus]

If the President talks about putting his foot on the throat of anyone, I think it's over the line. I'm talking about appropriate rhetoric in a democracy.

Yeah, that's what I was ridiculing, good job! And while I don't listen to your crank-witted right pundits, I'm sure the "kenya socialism islam BRAAP" crowd has yelled themselves hoarse over this. Unless even they think it's inconsequential. Either way, you just came off as pleading for some sympathy for the devil. I'm not sure anyone's buying outside the Village.

[Khendraja'aro]

So, there's a corporation which single-handedly causes one of the greatest man-made catastrophes ever - and Dread is concerned about the rhetoric?

What do you want the president to say? "I'm a bit discontented with the overall circumstances?"

[EyeKhan]

So, there's a corporation which single-handedly causes one of the greatest man-made catastrophes ever - and Dread is concerned about the rhetoric?

What do you want the president to say? "I'm a bit discontented with the overall circumstances?"

If I were president, I'd call up BP's boss and say: "What the fuck???" and do this:

[Ominous Gamer]

Dude, I didn't see Kick Ass or Inglorious Basterds. I don't find them offensive or extreme. I never fucking saw them.

So your preaching to everyone about how everyone should be offended about how a 10 year old character was played by an 11-12 year old actress, who was dressed up to look 14+ because she had lines that involved cunt...came from where? If you didn't see the movie, and your

lack of being offended

didn't cause you to start that tangent, then please update us on what source, or whos words we are actually reading when you go off on these conservative rants.

(or caring) confuses and bothers you, but you need to get over this fact.

I think you missed something here. This hasn't come up at all yet.

The debate about Bush's rhetoric was wide and lively back in 2001.

I wouldn't know, but I do know it was 2001, and the nation was lock stepping into crazy town. When shit like the Patriot Act passes, the media doesn't really focus on the negatives of Red vs Blue mentality. Thankfully this is the internet, so you shouldn't have much trouble verifying how much shit the MSM gave Bush for his chest beating. Again, I'm proud of you that you remembered it after being reminded.

And now a similar debate should be happening now.

No, because the people being harmed by BP agree with Obama. The ecosystem is fucked, the coastal industry is fucked, the toursism industry is fucked. People want blood. A boot to the neck sounds like a nice compromise.
At least the terrorists warn us when they want to start a holy war or start random shit to fuck up our day.

Obama's rhetoric has been an issue from the start

only to you, and your ilk

because he's now more than just "famous for his speeches". He's the President,

A President who was arguably elected solely on his speeches, so strongly in fact that the news now runs a Truth-O-Meter on him.

and he is supposed to help set the tone of discussion in politic.

Sounds like he is doing a pretty good job of that right now. A business fucks up, lies, hampers, and generally does a shit job every step of the way, you're going to get, at the very least, a nasty speech.

Considering how he campaigned on changing the tone and methods of Washington, he isn't helpful when he conjures the image of him crushing the larynxes of various organizations.

Unless of course that is what the public is finally understanding needs done to certain profit above all else corporations.

What if he used the same language about Waco? About illegal immigrants? About power utilities? About any kind of law breaker or organization that he doesn't like?

I'm sure you would be back here ranting the same bullshit all over again.

You're the one being "rather select in what you consider offensive, extreme, or improper" because you like what he's saying.

As does the vast majority that understands Presidents and leaders don't have to be PC all the time, and that PCness simply becomes stupidness at a certain point.

Yet you utterly fail to ever think of the bigger picture of what makes our society work.

Coming from the guy who has to spread the word of others because he is so far out of the loop on current events of regular society?

There is a social and political climate that allows you to enjoy watching Kick Ass, instead of having to smuggle it past the morality police.

This is doublespeak, you're complaining about the morality police, after you 3rd party rant on Kick-Ass, and beating around the bush on wanting to censor the President for putting into words what society is already feeling.

But you're numb to this reality because you're too busy fretting over how my 95+ year old grandma described Inglorious Basterds to me.

It sucks you kept this at the bottom, I kept wanting to refer to it, but I didn't want to change the flow of your post. This is your issue. You're not actually involved in most of the shit you're attacking. Kick-Ass: someone else's opinion, Inglorious Basterds: 95+ year old grandma (she totally has a grasp of modern society). Really Dread, how do we know when we are dissecting the thoughts of Dread, and when we are dissecting the thoughts of someone else that you're marching behind? Or are we all witnessing the evolution of a mini Lewk with the astroturfing?

[EyeKhan]

What the fuck?

[Nessus]

I like how the word "organization" keeps popping up. Can we call them a business? Or a corporation? That'd be

uh

more honest

[Ominous Gamer]

What the fuck?

My first full post dissection, I'm proud of it

I like how the word "organization" keeps popping up. Can we call them a business? Or a corporation? That'd be

uh

more honest

I used corporation