As expected, President Obama is planning to lift the drilling moratorium and to return to his planned drilling program off pristine areas of the East Coast. While Obama is no longer claiming that oil rigs really do not spill much, it really does not matter much. Bureau head Michael Bromwich has announced that the six-month ban is unlikely to be renewed in a blow to environmentalists. One lasting change? The Obama Administration changed the name of the scandal-laden Minerals Management Service to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
The Administration has been putting on a full court press with officials expressing relief that they can find no large amounts of oil left — brushing over the millions of gallons of toxic chemicals that they allowed BP to dump into the ocean to disperse the oil. Experts have objected that the Obama Administration has been actively downplaying research showing these chemicals remain in the food chain for many years. Administration officials have said that the health impact of these chemicals remains uncertain — leading others to question the decision to dump millions of gallons into the ocean.
The recent public offensive appears calculated in part to lift the ban. In the ultimate example of “out of sight out of mind,” Bromwich insists that he can “see no information so far that would justify extending the moratorium.”
Source: CNN
Sure cut the middle man’s profit only looking for a little take. That is ok. When Vito shows up Blouise, you’ll know….lol
Slarti,
Emailed you the info
Bob,Esq.
I am going for the integrity.
“I offer no defense but rather bow my head in abject humbleness as I grovel before the throne of your towering intellect … turn your mighty gaze towards others for this lowly peon is undeserving of your notice.”
Passive aggressive or bereft of integrity?
You tell me.
Slarti: “Since I find you telling me that my opinions are invalid and that I can’t use words unless they’ve previously been used in the thread uninteresting, I probably wont be commenting on the executive overreach/torture discussion here anymore.”
Is this your way of apologizing for changing the subject when you had no retort?
Slarti: I explained my position and the reasoning behind it.
No, you didn’t as I explained above.
Slarti: Overall, I’m happy with President Obama’s performance, even though he hasn’t done what both of us would like done as far as executive overreach. I don’t think that many Americans have the luxury to care more strongly about executive overreach than the economy right now.”
Exactly where does law and order fit in your whimsical and capricious universe?
Lemme guess, Kant got it wrong when he wrote:
“Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”
Slarti: “I personally believe that a Republican Congress or Presidency is a clear and present danger to our economy and that naive, black/white analyses like yours serve only to make this danger more likely.”
You sound a lot like Little Bill at the end of Unforgiven.
“Obama doesn’t deserve this; he was building a house–in a bad economy.”
Hint:
Categorical imperative: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Accordingly, you have yet to offer one viable reason for excusing Obama’s embracing and defending the executive over-reaching powers established by the Bush administration.
Slarti: I choose to judge the president based on all of his actions – you can make up your mind based on the president’s actions regarding executive overreach alone if you want to, but making decisions about complex, muti-faceted topics based on a single issue has always struck me as shortsighted, stupid, and intellectually lazy.”
More proof that you DON’T value the office or document over the man.
Had Bush used the economy as an excuse to extend his stay in office, i.e. yet again exercising power beyond right which no one has a right to, you’d be fit to be tied. Why? Not because he added yet another tyrannical (look it up) act to his rap sheet — obviously you’re fine with warrantless wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, etc. — but because he’s not your guy.
You’re not only a wide-eyed liberal apologist, you’re a hypocrite as well. And I’m being nice.
Hey Blouise,
What’s going on on the lake today?
Bob,Esq.
You are probably correct. But given a mathman’s mind, they can be irrational….push his buttons and see if you could push him in to a tangent.
Slarti,
pardon me, but, if pushed, I could go on an irrational tangent. But the effect could be a direct correlation to the circumference’s diameter, but the variables in dispute could be ascertained given the probability of variable correlations.
How’s that for circular reasoning…..
AY,
I would prefer it if you used 2π/45 instead of 8. Radians are much more natural…
Bob,
Since I find you telling me that my opinions are invalid and that I can’t use words unless they’ve previously been used in the thread uninteresting, I probably wont be commenting on the executive overreach/torture discussion here anymore. I explained my position and the reasoning behind it. Overall, I’m happy with President Obama’s performance, even though he hasn’t done what both of us would like done as far as executive overreach. I don’t think that many Americans have the luxury to care more strongly about executive overreach than the economy right now. I personally believe that a Republican Congress or Presidency is a clear and present danger to our economy and that naive, black/white analyses like yours serve only to make this danger more likely. I choose to judge the president based on all of his actions – you can make up your mind based on the president’s actions regarding executive overreach alone if you want to, but making decisions about complex, muti-faceted topics based on a single issue has always struck me as shortsighted, stupid, and intellectually lazy.
On a more prosaic note, I’ll be responding to the 9/11 comments by you and Lincoln on the thread:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/08/01/australian-public-schools-teaching-humans-and-dinosaurs-co-existed
As a kindness to anyone trying to follow this fight can we keep the 9/11 discussion on that thread?
Bob,
“….. And what’s your defense; tu quo que? ….”
=====================================================
Nope, for I drew a conclusion relevant to the attack … but I digress … but to reading.
Byron,
While I greatly enjoy debating with you about things economic and political, it’s nice to be on the same side from time to time…
Bryon posted:
Thanks for saying this – I’ve been trying to get this point across for ages. Bob doesn’t seem to understand that controlled demolition is one way to initiate gravitational collapse not the only way and that any building will undergo gravitational collapse given an initiating event that compromises the structure and sufficient GPE above the initiating event to make the collapse self-sustaining.
It seemed to me that Bob did disagree with that statement – according to him you can’t do analysis based on conservation of energy without using force. I wonder how he passed his basic physics classes…
Blouise,
Bob do write real pretty, don’t he? Too bad his understanding of physics is so stunted.
Slarti,
Whew … there is a lot of material to cover but I am in the rhythm and just stopping to catch my breath
Bob,Esq.,
I offer no defense but rather bow my head in abject humbleness as I grovel before the throne of your towering intellect … turn your mighty gaze towards others for this lowly peon is undeserving of your notice.
In other words; buzz off bozo … I’m readin’ here
Byron said “The only thing required for collapse is an initiating event of a certain size (energy level) to overstress supporting members to failure”.
When the human mind is permitted to analyze a phenomenon by making use of such ambiguity the resultant conclusion must rely on the same ambiguity for support.
Energy doesn’t “overstress” anything. The word you are looking for is “force”.
Energy alone cannot be used to analyze an event. Two energies do not engage in battle. They must be directed. This directed energy is known as force. When the force is applied to an object work can be performed. The trick is to have the force needed to perform the work be greater than the force trying tom stop you.
What Slartibartfast has done is to assemble an orchestra (energy), but he provided them with no music or conductor. When music was played he considers it to be the result of having excellent musicians. His conclusions rely on the musician having the ability to play the notes. We know it takes more. Much more. Even if you assembled the best musicians in the world (giving them the greatest chance of creating music by playing random notes) the result would most likely not be considered music. The sheet music and conductor provide direction. They also serve to provide, and significantly improve, efficiency. Without direction, efficiency must be accepted as being extremely low. However, the Slartibartfast analysis relies on extremely high efficiency from random notes.
Energy is like an orchestra. They may have great potential, but until they are provided with direction they aren’t likely to work harmoniously (create what we would call music). The Slartibartfast analysis has them working harmoniously simply because they are excellent musicians.
Gravity can be said to provide some direction, but the efficiency of the interaction would remain extremely low. Random events rarely result in high efficiency.
Take a dump truck full of gravel. That load has an average height of 8 ft. Now pour that gravel onto the road. Was the road destroyed? Why not? The potential definitely did exist. Did it not? Using only energy, tell me why it did not. Try using the Slartibartfast method to determine the results. If you understand his analysis, you should be able to make use of it in this scenario.
Blouise,
“Barbarian Bob?” Really? Wouldn’t a ‘barbarian’ be more prone to refer to his opponent as “Meat?” No, wait, that would be Slarti’s pet name for me.
And what’s your defense; tu quo que?
Please.
… once again
Slarti,
As I prepare for my Saturday afternoon romp through the 1500 posts, I decided to first read the most recent offerings from Lincoln and Barbarian Bob …
Bob did not disappoint … “Such clarity of thought; in the confines of this cracker factory no less. THANK YOU! Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ, thank you!”
… and I will ignore Lincoln’s “Marie Antoinette” attitude as expressed in these words … ” … when the audience lacks the knowledge or analytical skills to make up their own minds, but that tactic can hardly be considered persuasive among educated men and women.”
…but instead take to heart “The only scientific analysis of the WTC collapse that should be accepted is one where the author is willing to state that not enough information exists to arrive at any scientifically sound conclusion.”
As a member of the Great Un-scientific-Washed community I will commence munching on the 1500 crackers your debated has baked.
A nice fruit basket would be appreciated. 😳
BobEsq:
here is a video on Energy Methods in Structural Engineering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzBS_oucC5A
It is from an Indian online University.
Byron,
You’ve heard the phrase, “you had me at hello.”
Well Lincoln had me at “a mathematician has attempted to account for the collapse using energy without associating force.”
Force necessitates a DIRECTIONAL component; thus the reason I told Slarti:
“And no one is fronting your obscenely non-directional GPE argument because all the GPE in the world won’t melt steel unless you can explain how said energy is DIRECTED to do so. Witness the fact that Niagra Falls is not on fire.”