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
Slarti
Bravo! Encore!
AY,
You don’t have to tell me – my sunglasses were a necessary part of my gear for Duke games. I felt naked before basketball games until I had my head painted and sunglasses on. 8)
Slarti,
Not that I have to tell you but, when you shine as bright as you do and you hail from the other side of Lansing. Which btw was stolen from the Indians…yep…sold by a Catholic Priest….Nokomis was the chiefs name, back to the subject. You can make a smiley face with sun glasses with an 8 and right paren…) see: 8) you sure do need them….
You’re right, the attempt to prosecute Bush administration war crimes couldn’t possibly have any impact on the economy. The Republicans would just see it as an attempt to reign in executive power run amok and not in any way an attack on Republicans as a whole. Hell, they’d probably jump right on the bandwagon and start locking up Bush Administration lawyers… Since I was wrong about the Republicans being upset, I guess it wouldn’t have made it more difficult to get any of the three Republicans who voted for cloture on the stimulus on board (and it probably wouldn’t have affected the environment that drove Arlen Specter to the Democratic party at all). Since the Republicans told us that the stimulus didn’t work, even if prosecutions sank the bill or caused it to be watered down even more we can assume that unemployment wouldn’t have gone up to something like 15% and even if it did, I’m sure we would have gotten nowhere near a tipping point into depression. Finally, since I prefaced the comment with ‘in my opinion…’, everything that I said was 100% true (unless you think I’m lying about what my opinion is). Just like it would be completely true if I wrote: “I think Bob is an arrogant bastard with some serious misunderstandings of basic physics.” (I’d like to note that I’m using the term bastard in a colloquial sense here – I have no knowledge whatsoever of Bob’s parentage.) I guess in the end, I’m just being stupid to think that actions in one area might have an effect on something in another area.
I was referring to torture as I believe that the reigning in of executive power would have to start with prosecuting the war crime of torture (which Cheney has essentially admitted in my opinion). I don’t know how else you could attack the issue since the SCOTUS hasn’t seemed much inclined to slap down executive overreach lately…
I believe that torture is still a war crime. I suppose that defrauding the country into war could be considered an aggravating factor.
As I said above, since the SCOTUS isn’t interested in stopping executive overreach, I don’t see any real way to get at the issue without prosecuting the crimes that were committed via executive overreach (and torture seems like a clear case of well-documented crimes being committed). I’m arguing that painting the transgressions of the Bush and Obama administrations as equally bad is a false equivalence and that it matters (at least to me) whether or not any actions have been taken under these doctrines. Finally, I think you are oversimplifying the situation – President Obama has never made a secret of the fact that he cares more about economic issues and administration officials have admitted that the economy was in much worse shape that they had thought before the inauguration. Administrations do not have limitless focus to spend on every issue and triage dictates that you fix the artery that the patient is about to bleed out from before you worry about the poison. Furthermore, given a lack of focus, any part of the bureaucracy is going to bend its actions to suit its proclivities and the Bush administration spent eight years politicizing the civil service in a manner unprecedented in both its size and scope. To use an analogy to one of my favorite TV shows growing up, I think the president is like Hawkeye Pierce (well, he might not be Hawkeye, but at least he’s not Frank Burns ;-)) working on the patient’s body and we’ve got to wait until we get out of surgery to see if he can work on the mind like Sidney and the spirit like Father Mulcahey (or if we need to get someone else for that). Trying to equate President Obama’s actions in dealing with the massive problems on multiple levels left by the Bush administration to the actions of the people who’s deliberate actions caused those problems is childishly simplistic.
Yes. One can potentially be rectified, the other can’t. Also, I think that there is a difference between arguing that one has the right to shoot someone in the head at 600 yards and actually doing it.
No, I’m just think that the problems resulting from 8 years of the Bush administration aren’t going to be solved quickly and I think that the Obama administration is correct to focus on the economy in the current situation. I think you’ll find that I’m not for any more executive power than you are, I just think that it’s a lot less important than jobs right now and I think that the administration is doing a good (but not great – say B to B-) job on the economy. Additionally, I think we’re heading into an election which has the potential to stop the president’s economic agenda cold and that it would be a disaster to do so. As long as the Obama administration fixes the economy (and works to restore effective regulatory systems) I’m fine with waiting until 2016 (assuming that President Obama wins a second term and doesn’t take care of it himself in his second term) to get an administration to reform the executive office (I think that Buddha’s CPP is an excellent first step in this direction). I want to do everything in my power (as little as that is) to help the president succeed because I think we’re all screwed if he fails and the only other choices available right now lead to certain failure in my opinion. I’ll let everyone else decide if I’m a ‘shameless apologist’ or if I have reasons to support my opinions.
I don’t excuse anyone’s actions because he’s ‘my guy’, I just have different priorities than you and I think that the American people overwhelmingly agree with me. In fact, I respect the office above the man (one of the reasons that I refer to President Bush with the respect due the office rather than the disrespect I feel for the man personally – I make a conscious exception for Dick the war criminal).
It’s a real bitch for you that I’ve been giving a consistent, well-thought out opinion, isn’t it? Could you please let us all know when things have been more partisan since the Civil War. It would be helpful if you could include things like statistics showing a comparison of the percentage of Senate bills subject to a filibuster or the average deviation from a straight party line vote in the House for the time that you think it was more partisan and now. And while you’re at it, why don’t you suggest some metric of the ‘mass’ of legislation passed so we can figure out where President Obama’s first 18 months rank.
My mistake. I certainly inferred that from your writing. Maybe you should be more careful what you say. For the record, I think the death penalty is immoral in any application. My assertion regarding 9/11 is that the current evidence suggests that there is no viable case against anyone not involved in flying the planes into buildings because the effects of the airplane impacts are sufficient to explain the collapses and aftermath.
I stand by my reasoning – on every single point on which I have been questioned I have responded with an explanation as well as references and as far as I can remember you have never raised a single rebuttal of the content of any of my references (and you’ve certainly never provided any references of your own to this effect). You say my reasoning is fallacious. I say your understanding is lacking. James Joule agrees with me (and so do Wikipedia, various websites about physics and every physics text that I’ve ever seen…). As always, everyone gets to make up their own mind, just like they do about whether or not I committed the false dilemma fallacy you accused me of above.
Wow, you really hit that straw man hard! How badass. I’ve read several papers by Dr. Jones, but none of the several links I found to the Bentham paper in the past worked (I don’t recall you posting a link to it until recently – at least I’ve never found it and I generally check out all of the links you post). I’ve never misrepresented what I have and have not read and none of my objections to Dr. Jones’ ethical or scientific standards depend on having read that particular paper. I do believe, however, that the paper you linked is the one in the journal who’s editor resigned after Dr. Jones’ paper was published without her knowledge.
Maybe later, I’ve still got another post of yours to answer…
Byron,
Exactly! Doesn’t it raise your blood pressure just a little? I mean what’s the point if we can’t hold the government to the basic confines of the social compact?
AY,
Sadly, you’re probably right.
AY:
Mr. Locke is speaking to the issue of no one person being above the law at least in that passage.
Here is the full text:
“Sec. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
Sec. 23. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.
Sec. 24. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.
I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.”
Bob,Esq.
That way they can keep track of everything that you do. They will know where you are, when you bank and if you have paid your fair share of the incomes taxes. You must be in the lower to middle tax brackets. Because if you were in the upper to top 3 per cent it does not affect you.
I remember a time when a friend of mine from New York City Friend was a Bookie. He ran numbers for a living. His boss was on the Ronnie mailing list for the Inaugural Ball. He had pictures made with Ronnie and Nancy. I still think its a hoot.
Bryon,
I was not around but I am pretty sure that people treated there slaves like they treat property. If you think about paying 18,000.00 dollars in 1860 money for a person to work on your plantation you are talking a lot of money even in today’s dollars. So why would they want to treat them badly?
Sure there are some, but what about the folks that have a 80K dollar vehicle today. Are they any less capable of road rage? Not that I endorse slavery, but think in those terms.
BobEsq:
dont forget:
“. . . but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it . . .”
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
I forgot to ask; how does embracing warrantless wiretapping, executive assassination orders and the suspension of habeas corpus help the economy exactly?
Slarti: “In my opinion, the president was faced with a decision to prosecute war criminals or avoid another depression – and I think he made the best choice available.
Oh goody; a literally ‘false dilemma’ fallacy.
Sing along!
‘Disjunction junction what’s your function?’
‘Validatin’ conclusions with bogus either/or questions.’
Anyway, so the president can EITHER prosecute war criminals OR avoid another depression? LOL. And the two are mutually exclusive how? And just out of curiosity, what “war crimes” are you talking about?
Embracing the surveillance state and urinating on the 4th Amendment?
Ignoring Due Process by claiming the right to assassinate Americans?
Suspending habeas corpus?
These are ‘war crimes’ how?
Slarti: “And yes, I do think that mitigates the decision not to prosecute the Bush administration.”
Prosecute Bush for what? Defrauding the country into war? Bugliosi already laid out the case for that and that’s still not a war crime.
N.B. We weren’t discussing ‘war crimes.’ We were discussing the executive exercising power beyond right which no one has a right to. We’re discussing Obama not only excusing such behavior, after campaigning against it, but embracing said constitutionally repugnant policies and defending them in court. And your reply is that a bad economy entitles him to ignore Articles IV and Article VI because he can’t be both true to his appointed office and tend to an ailing economy at the same time? Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ.
Slarti: “President Obama can answer for the cases in which his Justice Department has argued against civil liberties, but I will point out that, at least to me, it is important to know if has, for instance, exercised the ability to assassinate US citizens or just argued that he should have it (both are repugnant but I think there is a huge difference in degree here).”
Do you really think there’s a difference between making someone ‘disappear’ with a 600 yard shot to the head or simply taking the person away while suspending habeas corpus? Where the law ends tyranny begins. Either way shameless apologists, like you, enable the executive to remain in a position to do whatever the hell he wants.
“When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
Apologists, on both sides of the aisle, who go out of their way to excuse “their guy in office” simply because he’s “their guy” do nothing but respect the man above the law and office. It is categorically deplorable and inexcusable; no matter how low the Dow Jones may be.
Slarti: “Whatever. I’m just trying to judge him fairly and in the proper context and I see him as doing quite a bit of good (as well as some bad) and unquestionably having done A LOT (definitely in FDR territory as far as quantity goes) in what I think is the most divisive, partisan political environment since the Civil War.”
Of course you do.
Slarti: “You’ve certainly implied that you wish to prosecute the Bush administration for complicity in 9/11.”
No, I said the only time I consider the death penalty as viable is in cases of treason; you know, just like what Washington wanted to do with Arnold. While Bugliosi has already set forth a concrete case against certain members of the Bush administration for defrauding the country into war and thus causing the murder of thousands of people, I have yet to see someone lay out a viable case against the Bush administration for 9/11. Keep your implications to yourself.
Slarti: “Glad you find me amusing (I find your poor grasp of basic physics hilarious, so I guess it’s only fair). My problem with you is that you don’t seem to understand how investigation works (HINT: employing a confirmation bias is a poor investigatory methodology).”
Your attacking my grasp of physics is simply the result of my refusal to accept your using the law of conservation of energy as a rhetorical jumping off point for some incredibly fallacious reasoning; just like your use of the false dilemma fallacy above.
Slarti “Reading scientific papers (even bad ones) takes time and I haven’t had any.”
Part and parcel of “investigation” includes READING the material you’re allegedly commenting on; and now you’ve finally admitted that you’ve been attacking the paper for months WITHOUT HAVING READ IT. Congratulations.
Tell me more about ‘investigatory methodology.’
Doh!
Buddha Is Laughing,
Ha … you aren’t taking into account his dreams!
Blouise,
I see that copy of “Porn for Dummies” is paying off. 😀
Before this gets out of hand (so to speak) I would like to stipulate that AY pulls on nothing attached to my body at any time and in any way, shape or form.
Except for maybe my heart. *sniff* *sniff* *HOOOOOONNNNNNNKKKK!*
that is pulling … the “p” got lost in the smoke …
Anonymously Yours
1, August 12, 2010 at 9:47 am
Blouise,
You said it was rolling towards Buddha, would it not be more correct to say that its a slow drip….but then again…what was the cause of Jefferson’s death?
**************************
Buddha Is Laughing
1, August 12, 2010 at 9:53 am
What is late diagnosed prostate cancer?
===============================================================
Good morning, gentlemen,
Spent last evening at Blossom (symphony summer home) listening to Bruckner (1800’s composer) so am totally mellow this morning.
AY … you double entendre rascal, you … poor Buddha is still recovering from his battle with the recluse and you are ulling his earthly chain as only a master debater can … yeah, it’s Hot in Cleveland! 8)
…What is late diagnosed prostate cancer? a lawsuit from the grave? … thus reinforcing the joke told earlier on another thread
The symphony is preparing a DVD for release so the concert was free to those who don’t hold season tickets as filming of the audience was taking place … the smoke arising from the woods surrounding the venue was dense ………..
Well Jericho,
Miracles do come once in a while….see…you too can wait and watch in wonderment and awe, as the rest of the heathens such as I do…..
Henman,
You don’t need to bring up the specter of Sarah Palin as a good part of the reason for my support of President Obama is because I fear the kind of damage that a ‘President Palin’ (shudder) could do to our country…
Oil rigs don’t generally generate spills, and presidents don’t generally keep campaign promises….
But sometimes, once or twice every 4 years, they do.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5cJrIKWmfs?fs=1&hl=en_US]