Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Baseball team renames ‘BP’ to protest oil spill

In a protest over the Gulf oil spill, a minor league baseball team is changing the name of batting practice so the players will no longer have to utter the letters “BP.”

The Brevard County Manatees of the Florida State League say they will now take “hitting rehearsal.”

This a home run idea until you pass it by human resources.

Gamingboy Posted: June 05, 2010 at 08:53 PM | 366 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: minor leagues
Commenting on this topic has been moved to the forums. Please feel free to further discuss this topic at its new location.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:41 PM (#3552372)
But "wacko lefties" (your words) don't argue for less government control in any area. Sure their answer to environmental problems is more government control but that's because their answer to everything is more government control. That's not a problem with environmentalism, that's a problem with "wacko lefties." To argue that the entire environmental movement is composed of "wacko lefties" of your stereotype is itself wacko.

I give one day a week of my time to an environmental charity which works on practical conservation and education projects. There are literally thousands of other such charities and organisations around the world, which do not engage in political lobbying etc but just seek to engage in practical matters. And then there are charities and NGOs which lobby, and these do tend to be more of a leftward bent, but to pretend that Greenpeace represents the totality of the environmental movement is as foolish as claiming that Bob Costas represents the totality of baseball fandom. There are environmentalists of all political persuasions and none. Environmentalism is neither a "mechanism" nor all of a piece. You just display your own deep ignorance.
Has a corporation ever done anything environmentally sound that it was not forced to do by regulation?
Actually, yes.
   202. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:43 PM (#3552375)
Has the movement ever argued for less government control?


Since when is the movement been a single, monolithic entity with a unified opinion on anything? When you can can demonstrate that to be the case, your question will be something above silly trolling.

The opposite is the case, of course. Environmentalists are deeply split on a number of things, such as nuclear power plants. EDIT - I could have added management of forest fires, the space program, etc. Which also ignores 201's excellent point about various work done by other bodies around the world.

Did you get the reaction you hoped for by flaunting your ignorance? Have fun?
   203. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3552376)
If corporations acted responsibly, there would be no need for regulations to control the evil #### they do.


It's not like this behavior is new or surprising. "Snake oil salesmen" have been slinging their wares since time immemorial. As long as humans have been exchanging goods and services there have been individuals and entities willing to exploit ignorance and laxity for their own personal gain. Libertarians want to pretend that hustlers and charlatans are no longer part of human nature, that we've magically advanced beyond the point where grifters and Madoffs will game the system, because we're all now "rational market decision making" machines. It's a fantasyland, and for the good of the nation and the world, we need to stop pretending that it's anything but fantasy. We need to stop pretending that Ayn Rand's ranting madness was anything other than pyshopathy. It certainly wasn't "political philosophy."
   204. Miserable, Non-Binary Candy is all we deserve CoB Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3552377)
More from those Green Meany Statists over at the WSJ.



A Wall Street Journal investigation provides the most complete account so far of the fateful decisions that preceded the blast. BP made choices over the course of the project that rendered this well more vulnerable to the blowout, which unleashed a spew of crude oil that engineers are struggling to stanch.

BP, for instance, cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem, according to documents belonging to BP and to the drilling rig's owner and operator, Transocean Ltd.

BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe—another buffer against gas—despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co.

Once gas was rising, the design and procedures BP had chosen for the well likely gave this perilous gas an easier path up and out, say well-control experts. There was little keeping the gas from rushing up to the surface after workers, pushing to finish the job, removed a critical safeguard, the heavy drilling fluid known as "mud." BP has admitted a possible "fundamental mistake" in concluding that it was safe to proceed with mud removal, according to a memo from two Congressmen released Tuesday night.

Finally, a BP manager overseeing final well tests apparently had scant experience in deep-water drilling. He told investigators he was on the rig to "learn about deep water," according to notes of an interview with him seen by the Journal.


The whole thing is well worth a read.
   205. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:46 PM (#3552381)
Sam, please bring your evidence to Holder forthwith. Your country needs you.


I accept your surrender and give you leave to exit the back of the room quietly. It takes a man to acknowledge that he has no valid counterargument to make.
   206. Shalimar Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:46 PM (#3552382)
But "wacko lefties" (your words) don't argue for less government control in any area.


Every lefty I know thinks the drug war is a massive waste of money that accomplishes nothing positive. There is one area for you.

Most also think we spend many times more on "defense" than a nation of our size and importance should, and we do this to impose our economic policies on other countries and control them. Two.
   207. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:49 PM (#3552385)
Then they obviously aren't sufficiently wacko, Shalimar. I did not address the question of whether the "wacko lefties" of Ray's imagination actually exist in the real world, preferring to leave it as an exercise to the reader.
   208. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:50 PM (#3552386)
Has a corporation ever done anything environmentally sound that it was not forced to do by regulation?


Actually, yes.




There are good actors in the corporate community. BP and big oil in general are not among them. I'm pretty sure the term "greenwashing" was invented exactly for BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign.
   209. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:51 PM (#3552391)
Then they obviously aren't sufficiently wacko, Shalimar. I did not address the question of whether the "wacko lefties" of Ray's imagination actually exist in the real world, preferring to leave it as an exercise to the reader.


I totally deleted a rant because you said this.
   210. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 04:52 PM (#3552392)
There are good actors in the corporate community. BP and big oil in general are not among them. I'm pretty sure the term "greenwashing" was invented exactly for BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign.


I know that some corporations aren't evil. I was just using Ray Ray's argument technique. Sometimes I doubt he is a lawyer.
   211. Blackadder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:04 PM (#3552402)
I haven't read this thread, and I generally don't comment on the politics threads. Still, I just searched the last two pages and I'm surprised the word "externality" did not appear once. The probability of a catastrophic oil spill is a cost that the free market would not induce BP (or whomever; take "BP" to refer to whichever entity was actually responsible for ensuring the safety of the rigs) to internalize, and as such it is entirely appropriate for the government to take measures to ensure that BP takes it into account. I guess if you really believe the Coase Theorem applies you don't think this is an issue, but surely no one sane is THAT free market.

This is not some crazy Marxist spiel; this is like week three or four of freshman econ.
   212. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:06 PM (#3552404)
BP apparently can't be trusted -- for leak estimates, at any rate.

The U.S. government will no longer rely on the London-based oil giant for estimates on how much oil is leaking into the gulf, the White House said Monday.

Rather, flow rates calculated by the U.S. government will help determine penalties leveled against BP based on how much oil has been spilled, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Progress continued over the weekend on getting the leak under control.

The cap placed on the damaged well is now collecting 462,000 gallons of oil a day from leaking into the sea, Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen said Monday from the White House, in advance of a meeting with President Barack Obama and Cabinet members.

That's up from about 441,000 gallons on Saturday and about 250,000 on Friday.

Overall, the ruptured BP pipe is gushing as much as 1 million gallons a day, the feds estimate.

Small boats have been enlisted to help skim "hundreds of thousands" of individual patches of oil that are spreading on the surface.

Allen also said Monday that the clean up process will take years.

"Dealing with the oil spill on the surface will take a couple of months" but getting oil out of marshlands and other habitats "will be years," he said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/07/2010-06-07_white_house_bp_estimates_of_oil_leak_into_gulf_will_no_longer_be_trusted.html#ixzz0qBiF3NXv


Shocker
   213. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:13 PM (#3552409)
BP apparently can't be trusted -- for leak estimates, at any rate.

The U.S. government will no longer rely on the London-based oil giant for estimates on how much oil is leaking into the gulf, the White House said Monday.

Rather, flow rates calculated by the U.S. government will help determine penalties leveled against BP based on how much oil has been spilled, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.


I grant that BP has an incentive to downplay the leak estimates.

I haven't the foggiest clue why anyone with two functioning brain cells would trust government's estimates on this.

Do you see above, Bernal, the incentive government has to pump up the leak estimates? It's stated right there.

The other point is that since we're talking about hundreds of thousands of gallons leaking per day, I'm not sure why one would think any estimate could be completely accurate.
   214. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:13 PM (#3552410)
More from those Green Meany Statists over at the WSJ.

The day that the editorial writers at the WSJ begin to read the articles in the rest of their paper, will be the day that the editorial offices of the WSJ implode. Of course Ray and David would say that the WSJ reporters are also a bunch of "anti-capitalists."

David to Ray: "They're all anti-capitalists except me and thee---and sometimes I wonder about thee." (half-smile)
   215. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:15 PM (#3552412)
Yeah Ray, the evil gummint is trying to make money off this deal.


Keep your gummint hands off my oil spill!!!
   216. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:15 PM (#3552414)
This is not some crazy Marxist spiel; this is like week three or four of freshman econ.


Freshman econ would be taught by crazy liberal academics or something. You don't need to consider externalities like oil spills and carbon emissions when you have the angry ghost of Hayek direct jacked into your brain.
   217. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:16 PM (#3552416)
Allen also said Monday that the clean up process will take years.

"Dealing with the oil spill on the surface will take a couple of months" but getting oil out of marshlands and other habitats "will be years," he said.


Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.
   218. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:18 PM (#3552418)
I haven't the foggiest clue why anyone with two functioning brain cells would trust government's estimates on this.


And we have the basic foundational cause of the libertarian dysfuction. Evangelical faith that the government is evil and untrustworthy. Baseless. Unshakeable. Complete, utterly blind faith. Libertarianism is literalist evangelical Christianity that substitutes "the market" for God and "government" for Satan.
   219. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:21 PM (#3552423)
Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.


You're precious.
   220. HCO Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:25 PM (#3552427)
Evangelical faith that the government is evil and untrustworthy. Baseless.


Actually I can't really disagree with that part of it. How many people would they have to kill and lie about killing before that would become true for you?
   221. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:30 PM (#3552431)
How many people would they have to kill and lie about killing before that would become true for you?


Uh...some? Not only am I capable of distinguishing between good government and bad government, but I'm also capable of noting that at least until the last 8-10 years, our government hasn't been in the busines of killing people. Furthermore, I'm quite outspoken in my opposition to the arms of government that tend to kill people for no good reason - be they SWAT teams shooting 90 year old grandmothers or family pets in the "war on drugs" or CIA operatives disappearing and torturing cab drivers, or more recently presidents claiming the right to outright assissination of non-combatants in the "war on terror." That is to say, when the government kills, I'm happy to scream to high heaven about it.

I'm also happy to not confuse the regulation of mineral resource extraction from common seas with "killing people."
   222. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:31 PM (#3552435)
Oops. I thought this was going to be a Baseball Prospectus thread.

I am reminded of what Brattain once asked the BP folks: "What do you want, me or quality content?"
   223. HCO Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:34 PM (#3552443)
I'm also capable of noting that at least until the last 8-10 years, our government hasn't been in the busines of killing people


Huh? Madeline Albright's half-million kids? Arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Cambodia? Laos? Vietnam?

The native Americans?
   224. Hombre Brotani Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:36 PM (#3552446)
Regulation attempts to PREVENT catastrophe. "Market pressure" only reacts after catastrophe has already occured.
As one frustrated Iraqi capitalist said after trying (and failing) to attract Western investors into a war zone: "Capital is cowardly." Capitalism are great at re-allocating resources to adjust to something after the fact, after people start dying from rotting beef or cars bursting into flames. It's a good bet BP's safety standards are going to go up after this disaster, but that's cold comfort if you're a Louisiana shrimper.
   225. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:39 PM (#3552447)
Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.


While this is undeniably true, are you comfortable waiting around long enough to have it happen? I mean, I thought libertarians agreed that things like cleaning up oil-clogged wetlands was a good use of federal government.


I don't know who's at fault, and neither does anyone in this thread. I don't know why you guys are jumping on David for saying that.

It sure *seems* like BP is clownshoes incompetent, and their penchant for doing things faster, faster, faster safety be damned (illustrated by a couple of examples in this thread) could have caused the issues, but I'm really not sure. I think the lax regulatory environment created caused a lot of problems as well, though. While it would have been nice if Obama had fixed this when coming in to office, it was undeniably a lower priority than any number of things, most especially jobs and healthcare.

I think the government should stop deferring to BP, since they have done a poor job in all facets so far.
   226. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:39 PM (#3552450)
Huh? Madeline Albright's half-million kids? Arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Cambodia? Laos? Vietnam?

The native Americans?


I'll concede this relatively quickly, but I didn't think this was the direction this conversation was heading.
   227. Hombre Brotani Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:40 PM (#3552452)
Certainly you could say the same thing about corporate libertarianism. In any discussion of what's good for the corp. vs. what's good for the people, the libertarian will come down on the side of the corp. That's a pretty long history of disdain for people.
Isn't that part of the keystones of Randian thought? That most people are morons too stupid to get out of the way of the Galts of the world?
   228. God can’t be all that impressed with Charles S. Posted: June 07, 2010 at 05:42 PM (#3552454)
I'll concede this relatively quickly, but I didn't think this was the direction this conversation was heading.

Conceding someone elses's point!!! That kind of behavior is going to get you banned from the intertubes.
   229. Shalimar Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:10 PM (#3552478)
Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.

It isn't going to affect Ray's property or livelihood personally, so what's all the ######## about? Nature will handle a lot of this itself so all you wimps out there should stop whining.
   230. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:21 PM (#3552488)
Do any of you disagree that nature can handle a lot of this itself? If you do, please feel free to go on record.
   231. bads85 Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:22 PM (#3552491)
Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.


Right -- one day, the laws of nature will dictate that the Sun will explode, erasing all traces of the oil spill on planet Earth.
   232. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:26 PM (#3552495)
To a libertarian, absolutely everything they don't like is a conspiracy to control people.
To a libertarian, attempts to control people are attempts to control people. Funny how that works.

edit: And the funny thing to me at least, is that despite spending a combined billions and billions of dollars every year on advertising, somehow corporations are pure as the driven snow and don't have any desire to control people. Or it's okay when they do it but not when any other entity does.
I don't know what they have a "desire" to do, but they don't have the ability to do so. Only the government can "control people." A corporation can only engage in voluntary transactions with others. (Except, of course, when it works through the government.)
Or maybe it's just okay when they create a society that makes massive oil use a necessity, because Ray likes all the things oil lets him do. Or something. It's very confusing, like a group of masochists who enjoy being abused but only in certain ways that make them tingly inside.
Pretty much all people except the Amish and Ted Kaczynski "like all the things oil lets them do." Energy is life, and oil is one of the cheapest and most abundant sources of energy we have.
   233. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:27 PM (#3552500)
Do any of you disagree that nature can handle a lot of this itself? If you do, please feel free to go on record.


I think that everyone agrees that nature can handle it entirely on their own. However, nature also works in cycles of hundreds and thousands of years. Are you comfortable with destroying whole industries that rely on the Gulf ecosystem?
   234. bads85 Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:27 PM (#3552501)
Do any of you disagree that nature can handle a lot of this itself?


Not enough not to be completely overwhelmed in the region. This isn't a small ooopsie because somebody flipped the wrong switch; it is something that goes beyond Biblical proportions.
   235. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:29 PM (#3552504)
Do any of you disagree that nature can handle a lot of this itself? If you do, please feel free to go on record.


Technically speaking, "nature" won't be inconvenienced at all. Sure, lots of individual organisms (birds, fish, dolphins, shrimp, people who live along the coast) will be negatively affected, but the earth itself doesn't care when things die. The earth was perfectly happy before life existed in the first place - why should it care if we all kill each other?
   236. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:30 PM (#3552507)
And it's as natural as the ocean water itself!
   237. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:32 PM (#3552509)
George Carlin said we can't harm the planet enough to destroy it, Mother Nature will destroy us first, allowing the planet to survive.
   238. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:32 PM (#3552511)
A corporation can only engage in voluntary transactions with others. (Except, of course, when it works through the government.


I don't understand this statement through any kind of historical or geopolitical context. Was slavery a voluntary transaction? Or when companies force workers to work unpaid hours or overtime? Intentional information asymmetry is a type of control as well.
   239. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:33 PM (#3552513)
Do any of you disagree that nature can handle a lot of this itself? If you do, please feel free to go on record.

What do you mean by "handle this"? I agree that at some point a new equilibrium will be reached in the gulf, but I have no idea what that will look like or how long it will take.
   240. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:36 PM (#3552520)
A corporation can only engage in voluntary transactions with others. (Except, of course, when it works through the government.



I don't understand this statement through any kind of historical or geopolitical context. Was slavery a voluntary transaction? Or when companies force workers to work unpaid hours or overtime? Intentional information asymmetry is a type of control as well.


The statement was made by Kneepants. It is devoid of historical or geopolitical context pretty much be definition. You'll note that Jeapordy never has the categories "Things David Says" and "Things That Are Ahistorical And Idiotically Untrue" on the board at the same time.
   241. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 06:38 PM (#3552522)
What do you mean by "handle this"? I agree that at some point a new equilibrium will be reached in the gulf, but I have no idea what that will look like or how long it will take.


He means it in the same disingenious, flaky, see-no-evil hear-no-evil way that climate change denialists mean "it was much hotter in pre-history before life even existed."
   242. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:00 PM (#3552534)
From "modern financial mechanisms" that drive massive bubble economies to oil-extraction ventures that drive massive energy sector contracts, corporations will choose short term profits every single time.
I'll tell you what: I won't discuss something you're an expert in -- neck-stabbing, I guess -- and in turn you won't discuss something you know as much about as Peter Angelos does about running a successful baseball team. This isn't just wrong; it's laughably wrong. I know it sounds really convincing when everyone pats each other on the back and says it during a meeting of your high school's chapter of the Young Socialists of America, but it's cartoonishly stupid.

That is why you need a robust regulatory agency *external* to the corporate infrastructure to control for low-probability, high-harm outcomes. The entity best capable of providing that sort of ballast to the power and will of corporate titans today is, of course, the federal government market. That is the fundamental failure of 40 years of blind-faith deregulation.
There has been little or no "deregulation" over the last 40 years. One can point to a few odd examples -- the partial demise of the ICC and CAB, for instance -- but those are isolated anomalies. (Yes, I know you'll probably trot out the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which was the repeal of a single type of restriction, not "deregulation.") Nobody who actually has any familiarity with the CFR could claim with a straight face that there has been "deregulation."
We have removed the counterbalance to corporate will, and thus the ability to guard against socially horrific outcomes, because we have quite idiotically bought into the notion that "business will regulate itself."
Utter strawman. Nobody believes that. People believe that competition is the answer, not business "regulating itself."

Yes. The problem with the libertarian theory is that 1) it fails to test as true when applied to real world and 2) it fails to *pre-emptively prevent bad outcomes.* Even if the theory worked - which by evidence we can say somewhat certainly that it doesn't - the "market pressures" could only act in a reactionary stance. "Market pressure" is lame "boycott BP" sloganeering. "Market pressure" is changing batting practice to "hitting rehearsal" all after the fact, while poison continues to spew into the common seas. Market pressure doesn't prevent disaster, at best it merely punishes disaster after the fact.
Unlike your other claims, this one at least has a grain of truth to it, but the same could be said for the penal code -- if one ignores the notion of deterrence. In a free society, one doesn't need to ask the government for permission to act just because there's a chance that something bad might happen. If you commit rape, you get prosecuted -- but that doesn't mean we regulate all sex before the fact.

Note further that regulation does not "prevent bad outcomes," either. Bad actors can ignore regulations just as they ignore other risks, hoping they will get away with it. (And that assumes that there's no regulatory capture, which is a liberal pipe dream.)
   243. Hombre Brotani Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:00 PM (#3552536)
Note that nature can handle a lot of this itself.
Depending on how loose your definition of "handle" is, sure, nature can handle a lot of it. That doesn't matter. WE can't handle a lot of it. We can't swim in that water, fish in that water, live around that water without adverse effects for years, perhaps many, many years.
   244. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:03 PM (#3552538)
Has a corporation ever done anything environmentally sound that it was not forced to do by regulation?
Yes. Routinely. Corporations make decisions all the time that are "environmentally sound" (as you use the term) in order to please customers who demand it.
   245. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:07 PM (#3552545)
See also "Citzens United." When presented with the opportunity to create from whole cloth "corporate human rights", as if that phrase isn't utterly nonsensical, where do the doctrinaire libertarians land?
The phrase may be utterly nonsensical, but it is also utterly a red herring. Citizens United was about constitutional rights, not "human rights" nebulously defined. (And of course Citizens United is made up of humans, anyway.)
   246. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:12 PM (#3552548)
Note further that regulation does not "prevent bad outcomes," either.


I think this is plainly true. It does deter them, though. Competent regulation does tend to deter bad outcomes. One of the take-aways from the oil spill was the degree to which the MMS was incapable of adequately overseeing drill operations.
   247. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:15 PM (#3552551)
So why isn't Obama being questioned for the fact the regulatory authorities are FUBAR and that they had no possibility of following their own response plans due to lack of equipment and piss poor organisation?

He would, except he seems to be too busy vacationing, playing golf, and having ex-Beatles over for entertainment to answer a bunch of questions.
   248. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:23 PM (#3552557)
Every lefty I know thinks the drug war is a massive waste of money that accomplishes nothing positive. There is one area for you.
I reiterate: unless the drug in question is tobacco. Or, well, pretty much any legal pharmaceutical.
   249. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3552562)
So why isn't Obama being questioned for the fact the regulatory authorities are FUBAR and that they had no possibility of following their own response plans due to lack of equipment and piss poor organisation?


I'm assuming this was David, and then the comment was deleted?

I think it is probably inappropriate to criticize Obama for this, since there have been a number of things that have been a much higher priority. Obama campaigned on health care, so that was a top priority, and obviously the economy collapsing was a large priority.

Reforming regulatory authorities, which would have been mightily opposed by the minority party, was a low priority before the oil spill. Indeed, compromising with Republicans on drilling was a significant olive branch that Obama was trying to extend.
   250. zenbitz Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3552563)
I think this view is seriously deluded. Obviously, corporations seek profits. But to argue that they have no other considerations is an argument that a seventh grader would be embarrassed to make. You might have noticed that death and destruction and suffering is rather bad PR for a corporation. You might have noticed that these things ultimately cut into a corporation's bottom line, that bad PR leads to loss of market share and lawsuits and a drop in stock value and what not. So a corporation has an inherent incentive to avoid these things, rather than to seek profit at all costs.


This is an awesome quote, Ray.
You are saying that:

"Corporations care about stuff other than the bottom line, because it might eventually effect their bottom line".
   251. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3552566)
The phrase may be utterly nonsensical, but it is also utterly a red herring. Citizens United was about constitutional rights, not "human rights" nebulously defined. (And of course Citizens United is made up of humans, anyway.)


The Constituation doesn't grant rights, it merely protects existing rights. Isn't that sort of a fundamental precept of conservative scholarship on the subject? Rights are natural, "endowed by the Creator", etc. The Constitution lays out specifically a few rights that the government can't infringe, because they are natural rights and thus unalienable by any just government. It also leaves open the notion that other such natural rights remain, unenumerated. Specifically, natural human rights are distinguished between privileges granted by the state.

Freedom of expression = natural human right which the state may not infringe.

Interstate commerce up and down the Mississippi = legal privilege granted by the state and regulated via the Commerce clause.

Rights are natural. That's the basic, fundamental notion, going all the way back to Locke, Voltaire and the Magna Carta.

The rights protected by the Constitution are natural human rights. If they were not natural human rights they would not be unalienable.

Corporations are fictive creations of the state. They don't exist outside of the state. They are entities created by state granted privilege. That's why you have to file paperwork in order to create an LLC.

Entities created by the state are not "endowed by their Creator" with natural rights at their creation. If you argue this to be the case, you are arguing that the state has the unlimited power to create, out of thin air, natural rights. If the state has the power to create rights it also has the power to alienate natural rights. As such, the concept of inalienable human rights disappears completely.

You want to grant to a legal fiction the natural rights of man. You want to do this because you are an idiot who has not functional grounding in reality for his insane ramblings and ideological faith.

As for "corporations are made up of people," that's a red herring and pointless. No one is suggesting that Bill Gates doesn't have natural rights. He most obviously does. Microsoft on the other hand has no more natural rights than does my End User Agreement with iTunes.
   252. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3552567)
He would, except he seems to be too busy vacationing, playing golf, and having ex-Beatles over for entertainment him to answer a bunch of questions.

Of all the Republican criticisms of Obama, the claim that he has taken too much vacation is the most shamelessly hypocritical.
   253. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:31 PM (#3552570)
I'll concede this relatively quickly, but I didn't think this was the direction this conversation was heading.
Then you are an idiot. I knew what HCO was setting up out of the gate.
   254. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:32 PM (#3552573)
I don't understand this statement through any kind of historical or geopolitical context. Was slavery a voluntary transaction?
No.
Or when companies force workers to work unpaid hours or overtime?
"Force"? Companies pay workers to work; they don't "force" them to. (Companies that don't pay workers either don't have workers or are charged with kidnapping and slavery.) If a company says, "If you do X, we'll pay you," that's an incentive, not force.
Intentional information asymmetry is a type of control as well.
Very like a whale.
   255. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:32 PM (#3552575)
Reforming regulatory authorities, which would have been mightily opposed by the minority party, was a low priority before the oil spill. Indeed, compromising with Republicans on drilling was a significant olive branch that Obama was trying to extend.


You'd probably want to account for the fact that Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint have had blanket holds on all of Obama's appointments pretty much from day one. Just because, you know, they're ########.
   256. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:33 PM (#3552576)
Depending on how loose your definition of "handle" is, sure, nature can handle a lot of it. That doesn't matter. WE can't handle a lot of it. We can't swim in that water, fish in that water, live around that water without adverse effects for years, perhaps many, many years.
"WE"? Who the #### are "WE"? WE are the same people who let them drill there, and drive cars out the ass. WE demand these types of things, and these are the consequences of those benefits.

Nature can not just handle "a lot of it". Nature can handle ALL of it. The fact is, all of it *IS* nature. It's crude oil - where do you guys think it came from?

Now someone get me 8 minutes of jokes out of this Risk Management textbook!
   257. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:35 PM (#3552577)
Then you are an idiot. I knew what HCO was setting up out of the gate.


Set up or not, it's not worth arguing. Clearly the military-industrial/national defense/police state is capable and willing to kill people. Clearly they do that, often. Far too often they do it to preserve the economic hegenomy of the United States and her favored corporate entities across the world. That is no reason to oppose regulatory bodies to oversea industry. Only an utter fool, which is what "Neiporent" translates into from the German, would be unable to distinguish those two functions and tendencies of government.
   258. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:38 PM (#3552580)
I'm assuming this was David, and then the comment was deleted?
No.
   259. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:39 PM (#3552583)
"Force"? Companies pay workers to work; they don't "force" them to. (Companies that don't pay workers either don't have workers or are charged with kidnapping and slavery.) If a company says, "If you do X, we'll pay you," that's an incentive, not force.


In the US, this is mostly true, but not really. Outside of the US, this is demonstrably not true. If your statement is that only in the United States in the present day do companies only engage in voluntary transactions, then I'd still disagree with it, but I'd also question the relevance to the topic at hand. Since we can clearly show that in the past, companies have engaged in involuntary transactions in our culture when not properly regulated and we can show that in the present, companies engage in involuntary transactions in other cultures while not properly regulated, claiming that corporations only engage in voluntary transactions loses any force, since the only reason this is the case is due to regulation.

Very like a whale.


Telling someone who desperately needs their job that they'll get fired if they don't work overtime for free, even if it's not true, is a type of control. I'm not saying that wolves have purple cohorts.

I'm assuming this was David, and then the comment was deleted?

No.


My bad. Someone else's deleted comment, I guess.
   260. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:39 PM (#3552584)
I grant that BP has an incentive to downplay the leak estimates.

I haven't the foggiest clue why anyone with two functioning brain cells would trust government's estimates on this.

Do you see above, Bernal, the incentive government has to pump up the leak estimates? It's stated right there.


What do the dozen or so independent estimates from places like Purdue, LSU and other universities have to gain? IIRC they all are considerably over BP's estimate. Oh wait, I know, they are all part of the conspiracy to control everyone.
   261. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3552585)
Of all the Republican criticisms of Obama, the claim that he has taken too much vacation is the most shamelessly hypocritical.

But he was sold to the entire country as a transformative agent of change and someone so incredibly brilliant and competent that he could accomplish virtually anything.

The way that some people talked him up back in the day, I would have thought that he could have personally swam down there and plugged the leak with a giant cork while holding his breath.
   262. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:41 PM (#3552588)
Nature can not just handle "a lot of it". Nature can handle ALL of it. The fact is, all of it *IS* nature. It's crude oil - where do you guys think it came from?


A gigantic hole in the ground drilled by human beings in order to drain million year old stored sunlight into their technological matrix. Is that "natural?" You might as well argue that nuclear fallout is natural. After all, uranium exists in nature.
   263. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:41 PM (#3552589)
I'm assuming this was David, and then the comment was deleted?
No.
Of course it wasn't David. It was someone that reports to the Queen - organi_s_ation was a complete tipoff.
   264. zenbitz Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM (#3552591)
You'd think BP (at least the engineers) would have _exaggerated_ the spill so that they could look like heroes when the contained it to 50%.

Also I drive a 240d that runs on 99% biodiesel from recycled cooking oil. It costs about $3.80/gallon, but the car (which weighs 2.2 tons) gets about 30 mpg.

Now, you could probably NOT run an economy on recycled fry oil (or at least not a healthy one -- nyuk, nyuk), but it's not out of the realm of possibility to start to wean ourselves from the black gold teat.
   265. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM (#3552593)
A gigantic hole in the ground drilled by human beings in order to drain million year old stored sunlight into their technological matrix. Is that "natural?" You might as well argue that nuclear fallout is natural. After all, uranium exists in nature.
Not to go all Kneepants on you, but stick with neck-stabbing.

The *oil* is natural. Could an earthquake occur that caused an oil repository to issue forth? Mos def.

That's not the same with uranium. We alter the uranium, not just mine it. And for your information, we don't do a GODDAMNED THING with radon, and it kills people. BECAUSE RADIATION IS NATURAL.

(Technically, we do something with the radon: we build airtight homes that keep the radon in)
   266. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3552595)
Of course it wasn't David. It was someone that reports to the Queen - organi_s_ation was a complete tipoff.


Whoa. My bad. Did not mean to imply that David was Canadian/British. Them's fighting words.

I may disagree with David, but I certainly would never call him Canadian.

The *oil* is natural. Could an earthquake occur that caused an oil repository to issue forth? Mos def.


Here's a pretty good article explaining the difference between seeps and spills:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdf15/2010/05/back-when-this-all-first.php
   267. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:47 PM (#3552596)
Cancer occurs naturally. Should we let nature run it's course there too?
   268. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:48 PM (#3552598)
"WE"? Who the #### are "WE"? WE are the same people who let them drill there, and drive cars out the ass. WE demand these types of things, and these are the consequences of those benefits.

What's your point?

Nature can not just handle "a lot of it". Nature can handle ALL of it. The fact is, all of it *IS* nature. It's crude oil - where do you guys think it came from?

The question of nature "handling it" came up in reference to the ability to remove the oil from the marshlands and other natural habitats. The fact that crude oil is natural is irrelevant to that discussion -- sure, it's natural, but that doesn't mean it can't damage or destroy the habitats of many plants and animals, including humans. Not to mention the potential effects of the chemical dispersants that are being used in the area.
   269. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:55 PM (#3552604)
But he was sold to the entire country as a transformative agent of change and someone so incredibly brilliant and competent that he could accomplish virtually anything.


No he wasn't. You apparently weren't listening very closely.
   270. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:56 PM (#3552605)
The human body can handle eleventeen bullets to the head, too, Chris. Geez Louise.
   271. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:56 PM (#3552606)
Should we let nature run it's course there too?
No, we should sue cancer, and make laws against cancer. Anyone caught with cancer should be put in prison!
   272. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 07:58 PM (#3552609)
But he was sold to the entire country as a transformative agent of change and someone so incredibly brilliant and competent that he could accomplish virtually anything.

And yet getting you out from under that bridge wasn't one of those things, apparently.

The way that some people talked him up back in the day, I would have thought that he could have personally swam down there and plugged the leak with a giant cork while holding his breath.

I understand now. You're upset we didn't elect Aquaman as President. Why didn't you just say so?
   273. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:00 PM (#3552611)
The question of nature "handling it" came up in reference to the ability to remove the oil from the marshlands and other natural habitats. The fact that crude oil is natural is irrelevant to that discussion -- sure, it's natural, but that doesn't mean it can't damage or destroy the habitats of many plants and animals, including humans. Not to mention the potential effects of the chemical dispersants that are being used in the area.
And I am saying in 100 years, we won't know anything about this spill. Why? Because of natural selection.

I don't disagree that this spill can #### things up for "humans" for a while. A long, long while. But the earth isn't here for *us*. That's the fallacy in all this. Same with climate change. We aren't screwing up the world - we're making it less how we want it. And I don't think that that's irrelavent. If we screw up the gulf, we, humans, will improvise, adapt, and overcome. We'll find something else to eat, somewhere else to live, some other forms of employment.

Nature will fix that coastline. Not that we shouldn't do everything we can to prevent and clean it up faster, but don't kid yourselves, people are upset because the price of shrimp is going to go up and we can't get oysters at all.
   274. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:01 PM (#3552612)
The *oil* is natural. Could an earthquake occur that caused an oil repository to issue forth? Mos def.


And should such an unlikely event occur; should an earthquake of such magnitude necessary to rip a hole this big and this deep into the crust under the Gulf actually happen; we'd be way too busy attempting to save the millions of homeless and drowning people across the midwest and southeast to try to clean up nature out in the gulf. Similarly, when the super-volcano underneath Yellowstone goes, we're all sort of fvcked. But until then, or at least until we can control nature itself, perhaps we should stick to controlling our own damned behavior instead.

The toxins spewing into the Gulf were not created by a natural disaster, unless of course you want to list "humanity" on the list of natural disasters. (And dude, that doesn't even get into the horror that is "Corexit.")
   275. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3552615)
No, we should sue cancer, and make laws against cancer. Anyone caught with cancer should be put in prison!


Stop, Chris. I know you like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, but really. Don't make this sort of fool out of yourself. You've come so far over the last 20 years.
   276. Spahn Insane Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3552617)
The way that some people talked him up back in the day, I would have thought that he could have personally swam down there and plugged the leak with a giant cork while holding his breath.

Even assuming anyone "talked him up" in that manner, you were apparently the only one who bought into it.

I love that the same people who accuse Obama of being a socialist monster are the same people who are accusing him of not being socialistic enough when it fits their partisan message (i.e., in responding to the spill). Why, it's almost as if they're more interested in scoring partisan points than in assessing the situation objectively.
   277. Miserable, Non-Binary Candy is all we deserve CoB Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:04 PM (#3552618)
File under Black (Gold) Humor:


The gambling website PaddyPower.com placed odds today on what species would be first to become extinct as a result of crude belching from BP PLC's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Odds are the Kemp's ridley turtle, and endangered species that migrates to the Gulf this time of year, would go first. A $5 bet on the turtle would win $9 if it's listed as extinct at any time because of the spill. Less likely species -- the gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish and elkhorn coral -- have payout rates of 20-to-1.

...

"We kind of have a very simple philosophy at Paddy Power -- within reason if there is a very newsworthy event that are people are talking about, people should be allowed to back up their opinion with some cash," said Ken Robertson, a company spokesman.

The website is also taking bets on who will be the next CEO of BP, the company responsible for the spill.
   278. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3552621)
but it's not out of the realm of possibility to start to wean ourselves from the black gold teat.

This is one of the most frustrating parts about our current relationship with oil. While we certainly need it, we don't need nearly as much of it as we use. My numbers are a few years old so if anyone can correct me please do, but the last time I looked it up 96% of American transport was oil based. 2% was based on natty gas, and another 2% on electricity. That 96% represented (and this is probably changing pretty quickly) roughly one half of the world's oil demand. If the US could just increase the natural gas and electricity numbers to about 10% each (say through a stimulus plan) we would put a huge dent in oil demand. Not only would we be crimping demand (and cost) in the short-term, we'd be signaling to the world that this is where the world's leading economy is headed long-term. This would be an enormously important announcement.

But the people don't demand that. Not through their voting record, and certainly not through their personal choices. "We" make (and have made) these choices, and now we're getting the bill.
   279. HCO Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3552622)
But the earth isn't here for *us*. That's the fallacy in all this. Same with climate change. We aren't screwing up the world - we're making it less how we want it. And I don't think that that's irrelavent. If we screw up the gulf, we, humans, will improvise, adapt, and overcome. We'll find something else to eat, somewhere else to live, some other forms of employment.


I'm sure the people of Bangladesh will be glad to hear that the US lives happily ever after.
   280. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3552625)
Telling someone who desperately needs their job that they'll get fired if they don't work overtime for free, even if it's not true, is a type of control.


No. It's an offer to pay them if they accept the conditions.

The "desperately needs their job" stuff is just typical leftishspeak to distract from the issue.

By the way, lawyers (the scourge of the earth for some around here) routinely work overtime for free.
   281. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3552627)
Even assuming anyone "talked him up" in that manner, you were apparently the only one who bought into it.

Not. I'm one of the least surprised people in the country that he turned out to be One Big Ass Mistake America.
   282. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3552628)
The fact that crude oil is natural is irrelevant to that discussion


Not at all.
   283. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3552629)
By the way, lawyers (the scourge of the earth for some around here) routinely work overtime for free.


So do a lot of people.

You aren't special.
   284. The Good Face Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:08 PM (#3552630)
No, we should sue cancer, and make laws against cancer. Anyone caught with cancer should be put in prison!


It would also be helpful if President Obama got REALLY MAD at cancer and clenched his jaw while talking about how mad cancer made him.

But he was sold to the entire country as a transformative agent of change and someone so incredibly brilliant and competent that he could accomplish virtually anything.


No he wasn't. You apparently weren't listening very closely.


And lo, the prophet Obama did move his mouth and begin to speak, and he did verily saith the following words. "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

Anything else you want to be wrong about today Sam?
   285. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:09 PM (#3552632)
The toxins spewing into the Gulf were not created by a natural disaster, unless of course you want to list "humanity" on the list of natural disasters.


Well, yes.

I fail to see why animals (birds/fish/dolphins) are a part of nature but we aren't.
   286. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:10 PM (#3552634)
What about the wildlife that is suffering and dying? Let's broaden the focus here.
   287. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3552635)
Suffering and dying is natural.
   288. Spahn Insane Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3552636)
Not. I'm one of the least surprised people in the country that he turned out to be One Big Ass Mistake America.

And if anything proves that, it's BP's oil spill.

Jackass.
   289. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:11 PM (#3552637)
Ray, yes, you're a "natural disaster". Happy?
   290. zenbitz Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3552638)
How is that we don't have genetically engineered oil capturing (not just eating) bacteria yet? Hmm... I guess you'd still have to scoop up all the bacteria after they were giant oil vacuoles... Maybe they could sink? Stick together? Convert the oil into delicious high-fructose corn syrup?

I WANT ANSWERS PEOPLE, DAMMIT!
   291. Chris Dial Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:13 PM (#3552639)
I'm sure the people of Bangladesh will be glad to hear that the US lives happily ever after.
It's good to be king.
   292. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:14 PM (#3552642)
That bacteria would soon turn on us, and then what? We'd be eaten, that's what!
   293. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3552644)
The invisible hand of the free market will genetically engineer oil eating bacteria that will save all of the planet.
   294. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3552645)
I love that the same people who accuse Obama of being a socialist monster are the same people who are accusing him of not being socialistic enough when it fits their partisan message (i.e., in responding to the spill).

I really don't understand this argument. Very few people are demanding an abolition of the federal government. Rather, what many are requesting is that it focus on areas where it can be useful and avoid areas where it is not. In short (as a crude analogy) stop worrying about how much salt is on my Big Mac (which I can deal with personally) and focus on things that individuals, and states, need a federal government for- like addressing problems off the coast of several states. And if they can't do the latter, why would anyone want them mixed up in the former? Not only are they going to foul that up too, it distracts (in terms of energy and resources) from the essential duties that the federal government has.
   295. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3552650)
I love that the same people who accuse Obama of being a socialist monster are the same people who are accusing him of not being socialistic enough when it fits their partisan message (i.e., in responding to the spill). Why, it's almost as if they're more interested in scoring partisan points than in assessing the situation objectively.


I don't see much to criticize Obama for here. I mean, yes, he's been typically hamhanded and Obamaish in his response to the disaster (*, **), but I doubt it's had much of an effect on anything.

(*) Like being "furious" at the parties involved here. That and $4 will buy us a Starbucks coffee. And I don't particularly think it's all that presidential to show that kind of emotion, but whatever.

(**) And like when he assured us to make no mistake, that BP is acting at the direction of the federal government. I don't particularly consider a situation where BP asks "Can we try X?" and the federal government replies "Yes" as the federal government setting the "direction," but YMMV. Either way, Obama has presented himself as being in control of this situation, when really the federal government is ill equipped to call the shots here as compared to BP.
   296. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3552651)
Anything else you want to be wrong about today Sam?


I have not been wrong about much of anything today. Thanks for playing, though.
   297. tshipman Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:22 PM (#3552653)
I really don't understand this argument. Very few people are demanding an abolition of the federal government. Rather, what many are requesting is that it focus on areas where it can be useful and avoid areas where it is not. In short (as a crude analogy) stop worrying about how much salt is on my Big Mac (which I can deal with personally) and focus on things that individuals, and states, need a federal government for- like addressing problems off the coast of several states. And if they can't do the latter, why would anyone want them mixed up in the former? Not only are they going to foul that up too, it distracts (in terms of energy and resources) from the essential duties that the federal government has.


Some of us are frustrated that the argument that Obama faces when trying to regulate the banking industry somehow doesn't apply when trying to regulate the oil industry. Those same people who were crying that Obama wasn't focusing on creating jobs when HCR was the top item on the agenda would surely have been crying if Obama tried to reform MMS policies.

Given the level of resistance that Obama/Dems have faced in FinReg, which is something with broadspread public support, how would he have been able to get something done on MMS reform, when we (as the voting public) didn't even realize the extent of the problem until the oil spill? Indeed offshore drilling was incredibly popular. How can people say, with any intellectual consistency, that it should have been a priority to reform?

As to what Obama/Feds should have done once the spill started, the feds have no expertise in this area, and are trying to work with the people who have expertise and incentive to fix the problem.
   298. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:26 PM (#3552659)
Yeah, what #294 said. I have to tell you that for all the lefties yelling about the joys of regulation and the terrors of the free market, this disaster occurred in a highly regulated industry. And while we may not know all about the causes of the disaster, it seems pretty clear that the government's response was hopelessly inadequate. This is a pretty terrible advert for government regulation, because it appears to be a classic example of incompetence, regulatory capture, and (possibly) corruption.

EDIT: Note, I am not saying that the response is to deregulate. What needs to happen is for the government to regulate properly. And yes, ultimately, that is on Obama.
   299. Spahn Insane Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:26 PM (#3552660)
I really don't understand this argument. Very few people are demanding an abolition of the federal government.

Well, clearly not those who (like you) may have a differing perspective on the role of government but are capable of analyzing the situation with nuance. I'm speaking of the reflexive anti-Obamaites (like Joey, and the teabagger crowd), who on the one hand scream full-throatedly about his regulatory initiatives being "socialism," while at the same time objecting to his not being more heavy-handed when it's convenient to their political postures.

And as we saw during the Bush years, those folks not only don't demand an abolition of the federal government-- they don't object to the exercise of Federal power, in principle, at all. Any objection to exercise of federal power depends entirely on who's running the show.
   300. The Good Face Posted: June 07, 2010 at 08:28 PM (#3552667)
I have not been wrong about much of anything today. Thanks for playing, though.


How quickly we forget...

I'll concede this relatively quickly, but I didn't think this was the direction this conversation was heading.


It's amazing you didn't see the conversation heading towards, "Pointing out blatantly stupid #### Sam says." I imagine most conversations you've had in your life wind up there pretty quick.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2022-23 NBA Kick-Off Thread
(666 - 1:42am, Dec 07)
Last: aberg

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2573 - 1:38am, Dec 07)
Last: aberg

NewsblogFormer MVP Bellinger agrees to deal with Cubs
(19 - 1:29am, Dec 07)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMajor League Baseball used two balls again this year, and evidence points to a third
(6 - 12:42am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogSources: Phillies, RHP Taijuan Walker reach 4-year, $72M deal
(6 - 12:28am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogGuardians, Josh Bell agree on a two-year, $33 million deal
(32 - 12:25am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogCardinals announcer Dan McLaughlin charged with felony Persistent DWI
(21 - 10:46pm, Dec 06)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogPirates land #1 pick in first-ever MLB draft lottery
(4 - 10:02pm, Dec 06)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2022 Ballot
(11 - 10:01pm, Dec 06)
Last: reech

NewsblogOrix Buffaloes Officially Post Masataka Yoshida
(6 - 9:51pm, Dec 06)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2023
(5 - 8:23pm, Dec 06)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogPhillies, Trea Turner agree to 11-year deal (source)
(45 - 7:52pm, Dec 06)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogTIME 2022 Athlete of the Year: Aaron Judge
(12 - 7:30pm, Dec 06)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogCubs need to go big at Winter Meetings or go home
(4 - 7:03pm, Dec 06)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogJustin Verlander heading to Mets (source)
(29 - 6:30pm, Dec 06)
Last: Conor

Page rendered in 0.7408 seconds
45 querie(s) executed