Politics vs. Reality.

[Biggles]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...gates-new-cheer-drill-baby-drill/tab/article/

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/gulf_mexico_oil_spill_worst_case.html

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So somehow the government caused the oil spill? Hmm...interesting

 

[Public'sTwin]

Perhaps you could more explicitly link what those comments mean in relation to a British-owned petroleum disaster?

 

[Joel]

Perhaps you could more explicitly link what those comments mean in relation to a British-owned petroleum disaster?

Agreed, other than "petroleum", I'm not seeing the relation.

 

[Biggles]

After the Neo-Con's efforts to ensure access to cheap oil by war-making in Iraq had disastrous consequences, they moved on to a new mantra:

"Drill, baby drill!"

That's what passes for political discourse - idiotic slogans instead of thoughtful, considered policy. Now that "Drill, baby drill!" has lost its simplistic appeal, what's next?

 

[Famine]

So... a British oil rig explodes and kills eleven people and this is evidence that a Republican-guided US domestic policy has failed?


It's... huh?

 

[Dotini]

what's next?

Only when you get IED's and car bombs in US cities will you know that policy and politics have failed. The oil rig explosion was merely an accident commensurate with industrial and energy policy. Not even mother's milk is as important as liquid petroleum oil. Jews, Arabs, Neocons and Libertarians all agree on this.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Biggles]

So... a British oil rig explodes and kills eleven people and this is evidence that a Republican-guided US domestic policy has failed?

It's... huh?

I guess I have to spell it out. I'm saying that "Drill, baby drill!" is about as thoughtful an energy policy as "Bomb, baby bomb!" would be as foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhvRQyRdVEI&feature=related

There's something weirdly Orwellian about this: the masses gleefully chanting what amounts to a corporate slogan for Big Oil. Drilling offshore may or may not be a good idea, moronically chanting "Drill, baby drill!" most definitely is not.

(The "Britishness" of BP - the fourth-largest multinational corporation in the world - is of no more significance than the "Americanness" of ExxonMobile in the Valdez oil spill.)

 

[Famine]

What does that have to do with a fatal oilrig explosion?

 

[Biggles]

What does that have to do with a fatal oilrig explosion?

Nothing at all Famine. Absolutely nothing. As usual, you're right on the money. Applying the mantra of "Drill baby, drill!" to push for the opening of new areas to drill for oil & the risks this may present to the environment & other economic interests, is completely unrelated to the fifty thousand barrels a day currently leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MOzmiY9iQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...lences-once-raucous-drill-baby-dri-28151.html

 

[Public'sTwin]

Nothing at all Famine. Absolutely nothing. As usual, you're right on the money. Applying the mantra of "Drill baby, drill!" to push for the opening of new areas to drill for oil & the risks this may present to the environment & other economic interests, is completely unrelated to the fifty thousand barrels a day currently leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MOzmiY9iQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...lences-once-raucous-drill-baby-dri-28151.html

American policy carries only marginal responsibility for the failure of private corporations.

 

[Famine]

Nothing at all Famine. Absolutely nothing. As usual, you're right on the money. Applying the mantra of "Drill baby, drill!" to push for the opening of new areas to drill for oil & the risks this may present to the environment & other economic interests, is completely unrelated to the fifty thousand barrels a day currently leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

Join the dots for me.

An explosion on a private oil platform and the eleven lives lost there can be used cynically to mock a catchphrase used by the opposition party because..?

 

[Dotini]

Join the dots for me.

An explosion on a private oil platform and the eleven lives lost there can be used cynically to mock a catchphrase used by the opposition party because..?

To be plain and simple :
An explosion on a oil rig which causes truly massive environmental destruction to 3 or 4 states can be used to highlight the danger of building similar oil rigs on the coastlines of other states. This is because of the danger posed to yet unspoiled areas.

To be a bit more complex and cynical:
Political advantage may be sought and gained because the losers and distressed interests may become unmoored to their traditional affiliations.

To be even more brutally cynical:
The Gulf of Mexico is dying anyway. Many of our national fisheries are moribund and more soon will be. It is ridiculous to think that we could or should ameliorate a losing environmental cause by denying ourselves the most precious commodity on Earth - liquid petroleum oil. The trick in the current situation will be to round up the usual suspects, mete out blame and punishment, reap political advantage, and all the while drill, baby, drill. For a time it may be difficult to ignore perceptive folks like Biggles who will see the hypocrisy in all this. Tough, but it cannot be any different in the world we have made.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

Nothing at all Famine. Absolutely nothing. As usual, you're right on the money. Applying the mantra of "Drill baby, drill!" to push for the opening of new areas to drill for oil & the risks this may present to the environment & other economic interests, is completely unrelated to the fifty thousand barrels a day currently leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MOzmiY9iQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...lences-once-raucous-drill-baby-dri-28151.html

How are they related? Explain please, don't roll your eyes and be sarcastic. The oil spill is a privately owned BRITISH rig. How is it related to the US Republican party pushing for more oil? Correlation does not equal causation.

I understand what you mean, sort of. If you mean that if we keep drilling offshore this kind of thing will keep happening? That makes a bit of sense, but not much.

 

[Sureboss]

There are obvious risks with drilling for oil with oil rigs, however, this is just a small incident (relatively) and I'm not understanding most of the posts on this page with relation to it. Sometimes mistakes happen and we have to bear potential environmental damage from that, it's not exactly new for us to encounter in our exploration for energy and food supplies for our vastly growing population.

 

[WVUscion]

To be plain and simple :
An explosion on a oil rig which causes truly massive environmental destruction to 3 or 4 states can be used to highlight the danger of building similar oil rigs on the coastlines of other states. This is because of the danger posed to yet unspoiled areas.

To be a bit more complex and cynical:
Political advantage may be sought and gained because the losers and distressed interests may become unmoored to their traditional affiliations.

To be even more brutally cynical:
The Gulf of Mexico is dying anyway. Many of our national fisheries are moribund and more soon will be. It is ridiculous to think that we could or should ameliorate a losing environmental cause by denying ourselves the most precious commodity on Earth - liquid petroleum oil. The trick in the current situation will be to round up the usual suspects, mete out blame and punishment, reap political advantage, and all the while drill, baby, drill. For a time it may be difficult to ignore perceptive folks like Biggles who will see the hypocrisy in all this. Tough, but it cannot be any different in the world we have made.

Respectfully,
Dotini

Unfortunately this line of reasoning is drenched with the slippery slope fallacy. Its not to say that many will make such connections, because thats what makes fallacies so alluring. There really is no causal connection between the two cases. Extensive drilling can conceivably go on for a long time without any such disaster occurring.

That is, unless this is a whole conspiracy with the British trying to destroy our environment....

Or korea attempting an attack......

Or military SWA-wait what!??!?!?!??! ROFL

 

[DK]

How is it related to the US Republican party pushing for more oil?

Does the USA divide its waters into blocks, and rent them out to oil companies one at a time? If so, maybe it was rented out during the Bush administration.

 

[Biggles]

Dotinin has already stated the case pretty clearly.

American policy carries only marginal responsibility for the failure of private corporations.

It is the responsibility of the the American government to protect the interests of the American people, in this case by regulating the extraction of natural resources, so that the pursuit of private profit by a corporation does not put at risk the health & well-being of millions of citizens (not to mention an entire environmental ecosystem).

The oil spill in the gulf is the result of an "accident", but it is an accident that could easily occur again. At this point it is not clear if BP acted in any particularly negligent way leading up to the accident. It's also not clear if procedures are any different, or safer, at any other off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf (or elsewhere). It IS clear that the oil companies don't have a fool-proof way of containing the consequences of such an accident.

Politicians who act as a mouthpiece for the oil industry claiming that the risks are very small - Sarah Palin's "tiny footprint", are abandoning their duty to act in the best interests of the public. Not co-incidentally they are in receipt of millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the oil companies. In the case of the Republicans they go to the extent of idiotically chanting "Drill, baby drill!" at a national convention. (I guarantee you, you won't hear anybody chanting that catch-phrase again for a long time.)

 

[Famine]

I'm still missing where this soundbite is implicated in 11 deaths and why these people's lives can be used as a stick to beat it with.

 

[Dotini]

I'm still missing where this soundbite is implicated in 11 deaths and why these people's lives can be used as a stick to beat it with.

In the history of mining and mineral extraction, It's likely millions have died. The passing of eleven more have nothing whatever to do with the issues at stake. Their deaths were a tragic but inevitable result of industrial and energy policy. It's pointless, even obfuscatory, to dwell on minutiae when far larger consequences are afoot.

With highest regards,
Dotini

 

[Sureboss]

Their deaths were an inevitable result of industrial and energy policy? You'll have to expand on that.

 

[Dotini]

Their deaths were an inevitable result of industrial and energy policy? You'll have to expand on that.

Sure, boss! By that statement I simply mean, firstly, the US government, by granting leases to explore for and produce minerals such as gas and oil on federal lands (and continental shelves) is a major instigator and partner in the global enterprise. The US government receives a royalty of ~12.5% on every barrel produced. Since the time oil was discovered in Pennsylvania, the US, its ships, trains, planes and cars, really everything, has obviously been increasingly been powered by oil. It is of supreme importance to the industrial and energy needs, plans, and hence policies, of this great nation and its government and industrial leaders. You will have noticed many recent wars were fought over strategic access to petroleum. This includes WWII.

Secondly, it is well known and accepted that accidents and deaths are an inherent risk of exploring for and producing minerals from the depths of the earth. It is seen that thousands die annually in the mines of China. Several coal miners died recently in West Virginia. That roughnecks working America's oil rigs lead terribly dangerous lives is well known to anyone who has worked in the industry, and that includes me. (My family has been in the oil and gas business for 95 years).

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Biggles]

Famine, I'm not sure why you keep repeating the 11 deaths scenario. I have not brought up the deaths of the oil workers once in my posts. It is certainly unfortunate that the workers died, however, the oil workers who died made a choice to work on the rig - no doubt they were relatively highly paid, partly because of the associated risks.

The marine life, shore animals & habitat, the various fisheries & regional tourist industries made no such choice. They all deserve more of the politicians than the idiotic chant "Drill, baby drill".

 

[Famine]

Famine, I'm not sure why you keep repeating the 11 deaths scenario. I have not brought up the deaths of the oil workers once in my posts.

No, I noticed.

It is certainly unfortunate that the workers died, however, the oil workers who died made a choice to work on the rig - no doubt they were relatively highly paid, partly because of the associated risks.

The marine life, shore animals & habitat, the various fisheries & regional tourist industries made no such choice. They all deserve more of the politicians than the idiotic chant "Drill, baby drill".

Still not getting the connection between a soundbite delivered by opposition politicians and this accident. Why did the former cause the latter in order for the latter to be used as proof that the former was wrong and deserves derision?

Despite numerous requests you've not actually joined the dots up yet.

 

[Duke]

I'll just say this: I'm already tired of hearing the words "Drill, baby, drill!"

 

[Danoff]

It is the responsibility of the the American government to protect the interests of the American people

Nope. Let me fix it for you.

"It is the responsibility of the the American government to protect the interests rights of the American people"

It makes a huge difference. In your phrasing, you could have the country going to war to increase the profits of a company. In mine, such a thing would be outside of the scope of government.

 

[WVUscion]

Sure, boss! By that statement I simply mean, firstly, the US government, by granting leases to explore for and produce minerals such as gas and oil on federal lands (and continental shelves) is a major instigator and partner in the global enterprise. The US government receives a royalty of ~12.5% on every barrel produced. Since the time oil was discovered in Pennsylvania, the US, its ships, trains, planes and cars, really everything, has obviously been increasingly been powered by oil. It is of supreme importance to the industrial and energy needs, plans, and hence policies, of this great nation and its government and industrial leaders. You will have noticed many recent wars were fought over strategic access to petroleum. This includes WWII.

Secondly, it is well known and accepted that accidents and deaths are an inherent risk of exploring for and producing minerals from the depths of the earth. It is seen that thousands die annually in the mines of China. Several coal miners died recently in West Virginia. That roughnecks working America's oil rigs lead terribly dangerous lives is well known to anyone who has worked in the industry, and that includes me. (My family has been in the oil and gas business for 95 years).

Respectfully,
Dotini

This is a very interesting position. While all three incidents that you mentioned (China, West Virginia, Gulf), your argument is still inconclusive in regards to government policy being to blame. It is true that if there was a ban on coal mining in the US then there wouldn't be anybody in coal mines, this line of reasoning seems about as legitimate as banning cars in order to eliminate accident deaths. Further, you will find that incidents such as these are the fault of the private companies and not the government. While the government could increase oversight of the companies, it is ultimately the companies responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees.

Is it the coal companies fault for not properly venting flammable gasses out of the mineshaft or is it the governments fault for them mining in the first place?

Is it the car companies fault for building a car whose gas tank explodes on low speed impacts (Ford Pinto), or is it the governments fault for allowing them to build cars in the first place?

Using your line of reasoning it would be the governments fault in both situations. You don't say that there should be greater oversight over such drilling in the future, you say that this incident is reason to not drill at all. It just doesn't logically add up.

 

[FoolKiller]

After the Neo-Con's efforts to ensure access to cheap oil by war-making in Iraq had disastrous consequences, they moved on to a new mantra:

"Drill, baby drill!"

And then the Democrat president, Barack Obama, signed off on an offshore drilling expansion plan mere days before this incident occurred. Not long after Obama froze that plan unless new rigs had the most up-to-date safety features in place (aka, reality has improved since this rig was built). But since you want to attack one side's policies with conspiratorial comments like "cheap oil by war-making" I do find it interesting that after the Republicans had to face "cheap oil by war-making" conspiracies and even some believing that they are responsible for 9/11 in order to start that war, that now neo-con commentators, like Limbaugh, have pointed to the "possibility" that this incident was the result of environmentalists.

See, the discourse is the same all around.

That's what passes for political discourse - idiotic slogans instead of thoughtful, considered policy. Now that "Drill, baby drill!" has lost its simplistic appeal, what's next?

Good point. I had "Hope" that we in the US could "Change" and one day look back and say, "Yes we can." But unfortunately, it seems like no matter what happens it is all the same rhetoric.



I'm sorry. What was your point again? Do you have an issue with offshore drilling? Do you have an issue with neo-con policies? Do you have an issue with politicians using slogans to motivate their agenda?

Because you have an argument against offshore drilling in this "worst case scenario," and you have an argument against silly slogans in Michael Steele, whom I would also call a worst case scenario. But I don't see how the two are connected. He said "Drill baby drill" years ago, during an election campaign, not after the fact.

Should we go through every campaign to gain favor for a bad policy, or one that supported what later on became an isolated disastrous situation and mock them? Or how about just mocking every campaign to gain support for a political movement? In the US alone I could start with the revolution movement.

In short, this political behavior isn't new and this incident isn't the first time you could draw a connection between plans to gain favor for an activity and the dangers inherent in that activity came to pass.

And if it is the specific energy policy you have an issue with then I challenge you to find me one where the worst case scenario isn't a disaster.

 

[Dotini]

This is a very interesting position. While all three incidents that you mentioned (China, West Virginia, Gulf), your argument is still inconclusive in regards to government policy being to blame. It is true that if there was a ban on coal mining in the US then there wouldn't be anybody in coal mines, this line of reasoning seems about as legitimate as banning cars in order to eliminate accident deaths. Further, you will find that incidents such as these are the fault of the private companies and not the government. While the government could increase oversight of the companies, it is ultimately the companies responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees.

Is it the coal companies fault for not properly venting flammable gasses out of the mineshaft or is it the governments fault for them mining in the first place?


Is it the car companies fault for building a car whose gas tank explodes on low speed impacts (Ford Pinto), or is it the governments fault for allowing them to build cars in the first place?

Using your line of reasoning it would be the governments fault in both situations. You don't say that there should be greater oversight over such drilling in the future, you say that this incident is reason to not drill at all. It just doesn't logically add up.

Very sorry, WVUscion. I never made it clear that I was not attempting to assign blame, fault or liability for any specific accident. I was simply attempting to assert that a) oil exploration and production were clearly in the national interest and mandate and b) accidents happen. Way down deep inside I'm actually quite shallow.

But in the end, "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves".

Oh, and I never said there was any reason to cease drilling operations.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Biggles]

No the government, neither the Obama administration nor the preceding administration is responsible for an industrial accident. However, it is responsible for promoting policy that makes an attempt to intelligently weigh the risks & benefits.

I don't even know where to begin to respond to you Foolkiller - you throw so much undifferentiated nonsense around. 911 conspiracy theories? Limbaugh's environmentalist conspiracies??

The US helping to install & support the Shah, then supporting Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, then attacking Iraq - you know & I know, & certainly Ron Paul knows that the primary motivation for all these foreign interventions was OIL. I know & you know & I know that you know that Ron Paul has spoken out repeatedly against these interventions. To say the "discourse is the same all around" is reducing everything to a "political relativism" that would make any political statement, however absurd, as meaningful as any other. Clearly, Ron Paul would never endorse that viewpoint & it is intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that you do.

Yes, there is, & has always been, political sloganeering, but "Yes, we can!" isn't a policy statement - the "Drill, baby drill!" chant stuck out even at the time (which, as you well know, was not "years ago" but barely a year & a half ago), as a particularly idiotic slogan. It was disturbingly reminiscent of the unthinking drum beat to war that took place after the 911 attacks that only Ron Paul, & a handful of Republicans (as well as a larger group of Democrats) stood against.

Specific energy policies? Well I would hope that it is possible to formulate an informed policy that attempts to ensure the best possible outcomes, but I'm pretty sure that "Drill, baby drill!" wouldn't be it.

(And Danoff: I'm not sure, is having your beaches, fisheries, wildlife & habitat protected from huge oil spills a "right" or an "interest"? You'll have to parse that one for me. What would the libertarian position be exactly? You get to sue the responsible corporation after the fact?)