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
Byron,
No Bugs Bunny here; just equating my glee with that of a boid in a tuxedo clapping and smiling.
BobEsq:
Lincoln as Bugs Bunny? But in the end Bugs didnt get the ice skating penguin to the “promised” land and handed him off to . . . ? 8)
AY,
Slarti wasn’t playing nice; he was playing bush league.
Lincoln: “What the 1500 or so posts on the 9/11 thread demonstrate is that a mathematician has attempted to account for the collapse using energy without associating force. His same analysis could be applied to any building that we know was taken down by controlled demolition and used to demonstrate that no demolition materials were used. According to the Slartibartfast analyisis of collapse, all structures are on the brink of collapse, simply because they have the GPE to effectively “self-destruct”.”
Such clarity of thought; in the confines of this cracker factory no less. THANK YOU! Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ, thank you!
Words cannot describe my utter joy… So I’ll have to explain in pictures.
See 1:51, 3:10 and my moniker generally.
Lincoln:
“According to the Slartibartfast analysis of collapse, all structures are on the brink of collapse, simply because they have the GPE to effectively “self-destruct”.”
I would say that is a true statement otherwise controlled demolition would not work. Buildings are designed to support the dead load of the structure and live loads imposed by the function of the structure. The material used has a factor of safety built into the analysis or live and dead loads are modified by a safety factor. The only thing required for collapse is an initiating event of a certain size (energy level) to overstress supporting members to failure.
I also don’t think BobEsq would disagree with that statement either, he just disagrees with the type of initiating event.
Slarti,
Changing the subject is pure bush league. Not once was the word ‘torture’ used in this thread until your last response. There’s a difference between mutatis mutandis and inserting your premises into another’s argument and thence continuing your argument.
Example:
I asked: “I forgot to ask; how does embracing warrantless wiretapping, executive assassination orders and the suspension of habeas corpus help the economy exactly?”
Your response: “You’re right, the attempt to prosecute Bush administration war crimes couldn’t possibly have any impact on the economy.”
Intellectually honest? Not in the slightest. Pure bush league.
And here you go again
I said: “Anyway, so the president can EITHER prosecute war criminals OR avoid another depression? LOL. And the two are mutually exclusive how?”
[FYI, this question directly addressed your use of the false dilemma fallacy; i.e. the use of a bogus either/or question to validate an unsupported conclusion.]
I said: “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?”
[FYI, the foregoing indicates my initial confusion at your attempt to introduce the topic of war crimes; since we weren’t discussing war crimes.]
Slarti: 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).”
Wrong; this is the FIRST instance of the word torture in this entire thread between you and I. You were never referring to torture until you decided to change the subject, and the premises of my argument, and attack them accordingly.
Slarti: “I believe that torture is still a war crime. I suppose that defrauding the country into war could be considered an aggravating factor.”
For someone who professes to be keenly aware of differing degrees of criminal culpability, you seem to be clueless as to the difference between defrauding thousands of people into early graves, a.k.a. MURDER, and plain torture.
Slarti: “As I said above, since the SCOTUS isn’t interested in stopping executive overreach”
And as I, and Buddha, pointed out in the posts above, why shouldn’t Obama be concerned about stopping himself from using the constitution as a urinal puck? A poor economy entitles the executive to disregard Articles IV and VI?
Slarti: “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.”
Well, we know the NSA is carrying out wireless wiretapping as we speak. And part and parcel of the reason we have a habeas corpus clause in the constitution, we don’t know if anyone is being held in secret…
But in regards to your ‘false equivalence’ argument, the man who embraces the constitutionally repugnant policies of his predecessor is just as culpable as his predecessor.
Bears repeating:
—————–
Slarti: “I do feel that equating the degree of culpability of the former administration to that of the current one is disingenuous, especially in light of the economic realities they had to deal with.”
So, ‘economic realities’ determines whether one is more or less culpable under the law? Or may we ignore the law simply because we think we have too much to do at the time? You’re so full of shit you’re gonna float away.
Kant: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Or, if you need an anthropomorphic version of the categorical imperative via modern film:
William Munny: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
You’re just another wide-eyed liberal groupie looking to make excuses for Obama. Obama not only ignored his Article VI oath by excusing the previous executive of exercising power beyond that which no one has a right to, but he took FURTHER actions to embrace and fortify said constitutionally repugnant policies by defending them in court. And at least Bush spoke out of just one side of his mouth.
————————
Again: “he took FURTHER actions to embrace and fortify said constitutionally repugnant policies by defending them in court.”
With regards to your MASH analogy, that’s something Hawkeye would do? Or is that more like Hawkeye entering the O.R. drunk and filthy. Face it Radar, put your Obama Teddy Bear away; it’s time to grow up.
I said: “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?”
You replied: “Yes. One can potentially be rectified, the other can’t.”
Which part of ‘making someone ‘disappear’ did you not get? Hint: You do know that Jimmy Hoffa ‘disappeared’ right?
Slarti: “In fact, I respect the office above the man”
Do you? Actually, your bush league attempt to switch the subject to a form you can reply seems far more indicative of contempt for the document. FYI, the office is a lesser part of the entire document; and by document I mean constitution — just in case you’re not paying attention again.
Slarti: “My mistake. I certainly inferred that from your writing. Maybe you should be more careful what you say.”
Judging just from this post, I’m apparently far more careful than you. Like I said, keep your implications (and inferences) to yourself.
Slarti: “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.”
That’s true; and seeing your version of the fallacy was literally ‘textbook,’ I’m keen to guess who’s going to place their neck on the block just for you.
I said: “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.
Slarti: “Wow, you really hit that straw man hard! How badass.
Apparently you don’t know what a straw man is; else you wouldn’t have used the term in such an inappropriate knee jerk fashion. Where’s the straw man specifically Slarti?
Slarti: “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 posted the links for months Slarti; both primary and secondarily. I also informed you that Jones is not the primary author, but tertiary. Neils Harrit is the lead author and the paper, unlike you, is peer reviewed. The only reason you keep attributing the paper to Jones is that, HAVING NOT READ THE PAPER, it gives you room to cast dispersions and innuendo. Quite scientific.
Slarti: “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.”
You did in fact dismiss the paper several times as if you had read it. And you do in fact, having not read the paper, ignore that many of Jones assertions were validated by the findings in that paper; metaphorically speaking, the bullets and gun matching the bullet holes Jones was discussing.
Slarti: “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.”
Sarah Palin couldn’t have spun it better.
So Professor Pileni resigned because of something to do with Professor Jones? That’s your story and you’re sticking with it?
Show me.
Slartibartfast said “James Joule agrees with me”.
Are you talking about James Prescott Joule? Didn’t he die over 120 years ago?
To say that someone who has never reviewed your thesis “agrees with you” is a fallacy that screams of desperation. If no expert in a related field has reviewed your analysis (peer review) you should not be attempting to sell your thoughts as being something they are not.
“Over 500 of the roughly 1500 posts on that thread are mine.”
Argumentum ad nauseum, ad populum, and ad hominem are consistent with those presented by Slartibartfast. These are the tools of a sophist. These should not be confused with scientific analysis.
What took me back was Slartibartfast’s conclusion that it would take such an enormous amount of thermite to take down the buildings, while at the same time arguing that the collapse could occur without it. Logic dictates that any building that could collapse without the need of “cutter charges” could not be said to require an enormous amount of the same had they been used.
What the 1500 or so posts on the 9/11 thread demonstrate is that a mathematician has attempted to account for the collapse using energy without associating force. His same analysis could be applied to any building that we know was taken down by controlled demolition and used to demonstrate that no demolition materials were used. According to the Slartibartfast analyisis of collapse, all structures are on the brink of collapse, simply because they have the GPE to effectively “self-destruct”.
Replace the Boeing 767’s with a Learjet 23 and the Slartibartfast analysis would still permit the building to collapse as observed.
I enjoy good well-reasoned analysis and debate. Appealing to one’s own authority and telling the reader that a dead man concurs with your analysis may work 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.
Slartibartfast threw not just the kitchen sink, but the whole kitchen, against the wall to see if it would stick. Those items that were so lacking in foundation that they could not be easily refuted were considered (by him) to be accepted. This is not the type of analysis that is or should be commonly accepted. When, what should be an “I don’t know” or “I haven’t been able to explain that”, is replaced by “prove it didn’t take place” it cannot be considered to be a scientific analysis. It can only be considered to be a war of words.
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.
If Slartibartfast’s analyisis was truly sound, he could tell you the minimum plane size, speed, fuel load, and impact location needed for the collapse to occur. I see nothing in his analysis that would permit such a calculation.
Bob,Esq.
I take a stab at this. Slarti is a Mad Mathman. Rules do not apply when you are from East Lansing (to wit Cedarfest) went to Duke (Tobacco Row money). What else could you expect, except to talk about something that they know something about unless, he changes it to something else. I have a vague recollection of quantitative Physics such as:
If a person is skiing and finds that they must give themselves a push to get started down the slopes. The slopes have angles of less than 8 degrees.
What is the coefficient of static friction between the skis and the snow?
Slarti, will either agree of no agree that this might me a correct correlation to an answer:
m*g*sin(8)=m*g*cos(8)*µs
µs=tan(8)
Buddha, Byron,
Seeing that both of you commented on the Article IV and Article VI dimensions of Obama’s policies, i.e. exercising power beyond right which no one has a right to, i.e. that which I’ve been talking about, would you care to tell me where Slarti got the license to change the subject entirely?
:3
Slartibartfast
1, August 14, 2010 at 12:03 am
Blouise,
I’m not joking. And don’t call me Shirley.
=========================================================
Only when flying!
Blouise,
I’m not joking. And don’t call me Shirley. 😉
Slartibartfast
1, August 13, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Blousie,
Just so you know, some of those posts are kind of long…
=============================================================
No … surely you jest!
Ay:
thanks
8)
BobEsq:
Yes it does, government long ago gave up even the patina of a social compact.
Blousie,
Just so you know, some of those posts are kind of long… 😉
Slarti,
My husband is out of town tomorrow and I have nothing to do so I guess I’ll bookmark the link and get eystrain.
Blouise,
I’m glad you’re enjoying it – I’ll have one more installment done tonight… 😉
Buckeye,
Have you read this?
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/08/01/australian-public-schools-teaching-humans-and-dinosaurs-co-existed/#comment-152428
I’ll make another post on that thread tonight. If you really want more of me vs. Bob (and friends) check out:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical
Over 500 of the roughly 1500 posts on that thread are mine.
Slarti,
As I said on another thread and will repeat here … against my better judgement, I am becoming interested in this contest.