The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Yeah really, using this case as an argument against deregulation is like using the Shahzad Faisal case to argue against Mirandizing terrorism suspects (Faisal basically gave up everything after being read his rights plus he was a U.S. citizen).

Huh?

[Balta1701]

What about the capitalists in the shrimping industry who are getting destroyed not due to better competition, but because some other capitalists who are always right because they are capitalists completely f***ed up trying to cut corners and created a disaster. Oh he who attempts to make money can never be wrong.

What's really impressive right now is how few people seem to realize that the economies of about 5 states have been absolutely destroyed for the next decade. Haley Barbour is still saying "Go to the beach, it'll be fine and nice". He doesn't have a clue that every tourist dollar and every offshore food production dollar his state has taken in for the last century has just completely evaporated and won't be coming back.

 

About the only ones who seem to realize it are the ones in Florida. Probably because of the tourist industry there.

[kapkomet]

I love the equivalencies here. STREEEEEEEETCH.

[StrangeSox]

What are you talking about, kap?

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

What are you talking about, kap?

 

 

picture=George W. Bush

picture=capitalism

picture=Obama needs to save the day

picture=government needs to fix it

picture=something to throw out to bash "conservatives"

 

How about you put the computer down, stop driving your car, stop using electricity, stop earning your money or taking it from another source, and go live in a cave without fire (because after all that emits carbon and might pollute something). Because otherwise, your stretches here is on about the same equivaliancies and you're just as much to blame as any one other category above.

[lostfan]

Huh?

See McCain, John

[StrangeSox]

picture=George W. Bush

picture=capitalism

picture=Obama needs to save the day

picture=government needs to fix it

picture=something to throw out to bash "conservatives"

 

How about you put the computer down, stop driving your car, stop using electricity, stop earning your money or taking it from another source, and go live in a cave without fire (because after all that emits carbon and might pollute something). Because otherwise, your stretches here is on about the same equivaliancies and you're just as much to blame as any one other category above.

 

 

Lack of regulations, lack of good enforcement of what regulations there were and the drive to cut corners to increase profits led to this. Can you actually make a coherent argument against a position for once?

Edited May 15, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

picture=capitalism

picture=Obama needs to save the day

picture=government needs to fix it

Because you know who's done a great job here? BP, Transocean, and Halliburton.

 

How about you put the computer down, stop driving your car, stop using electricity, stop earning your money or taking it from another source, and go live in a cave without fire (because after all that emits carbon and might pollute something). Because otherwise, your stretches here is on about the same equivaliancies and you're just as much to blame as any one other category above.

So, I assume you've stopped eating food since so much of our food production industry is based on illegal immigrant labor? Otherwise, you're just as much to blame as anyone else here for the entire immigration problem.

[kapkomet]

Because you know who's done a great job here? BP, Transocean, and Halliburton.

 

 

So, I assume you've stopped eating food since so much of our food production industry is based on illegal immigrant labor? Otherwise, you're just as much to blame as anyone else here for the entire immigration problem.

 

 

Yup, that's how stupid the argument is for your side. It's always a double standard for what your side of things are and what morality is according to your world. Thanks for proving me right once again.

[Balta1701]

Yup, that's how stupid the argument is for your side. It's always a double standard for what your side of things are and what morality is according to your world. Thanks for proving me right once again.

Good to know what really gets you going. "Sure, I may have destroyed the economy of 3 or 4 states, and put the whole planet in jeopardy, but making me pay $.15 a gallon to cover the additional risks/costs associated with those problems...that's hideous socialism!"

 

Oh, while we're at it...yet another failure at trying to plug the geyser tonight.

[StrangeSox]

. Can you actually make a coherent argument against a position for once?

 

 

Yup, that's how stupid the argument is for your side. It's always a double standard for what your side of things are and what morality is according to your world. Thanks for proving me right once again.

 

Eh, guess not.

[kapkomet]

Good to know what really gets you going. "Sure, I may have destroyed the economy of 3 or 4 states, and put the whole planet in jeopardy, but making me pay $.15 a gallon to cover the additional risks/costs associated with those problems...that's hideous socialism!"

 

Oh, while we're at it...yet another failure at trying to plug the geyser tonight.

 

 

Yup. That's what I said. Ignorant.

[kapkomet]

Strange:

 

To be clear, this is my point.

 

Balta posted about how the "last 8 years" (and then I heard it again in the Obama "I won't take questions" presser) was to blame for the oil spill.

 

I posted that yes, of course, it's always George W. Bush's fault when something bad happens. Then, I've seen the arguement turn into because BP, Hallyberteen, and Transocean are greedy f***ers, this happened.

 

What part of this was an accident do you not understand? Instead of blaming George W. Bush, or capitalism, generically and categorically right away for something bad that happened, I immediately said that if this all were so bad, why didn't god (Obama) stop it? He sets policy. He can do anything he wants, right? And I was also clear that I do not blame Obama for what happened, any more then I would blame George W. Bush.

 

Then, I see this turn into pictures and screaming about how it's destroying lives and people. Of course. It's an accident, and it has consequences. So what? It's Bush's fault. Fisherman will go out of business. So what? It's Bush's fault. People died. So what? It's Bush's fault. The oil companies are hiding s***. So what? It's Bush's fault.

 

Yea, that gets old, and needs to go elsewhere, because last time I checked, (again, for the point) god (Obama) sets policy. Period. But he likes his lifestyle too much to shut off the oil. And so do you, and so does everyone else in this country. That's Bush's fault, too, I'm sure.

 

This is a side rant but what I do find fault in our little manchild president is when he said "we've been there since day one" which is a lie. That's when he brought it upon himself, acting all high and mighty - if he would have said we've been monitoring events and this has turned into a very serious situation and we will work to get this solved, instead of the "boot to the neck" comment (he's not marxist? ). And then his little show of a tantrum yesterday. He's a immature egotistical dickhead. He's "tired" of the fingerpointing, he's "not going to tolerate it" - real mature, I think I just entered into the 8th grade again. After all, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

 

The bottom line is this. You all want this utopian, pretty little world where everything's equal, everything's green, everything's nice and beautiful, and then sit behind your technological computer, tv, monitor screen, cars, etc. and want to live the same life you have. Really? It doesn't exist, and never will. Our society is inherently risky, why? Because it's a human condition. It's not perfect, bad things happen. And when it does, you do what you can to fix it, not sit there and blame someone because they're "conservative" or support "capitalism". Nice try.

[Balta1701]

What part of this was an accident do you not understand?

When you're driving with a BAC of 0.2, and you run into another car and kill a few people...that's still an accident. But it's an accident in exactly the same sense as this was. It's an accident that is entirely preventable. When that happens, you don't just throw up your hands and say "Oh, well, there was nothing anyone could do". You throw the driver in jail.

The bottom line is this. You all want this utopian, pretty little world where everything's equal, everything's green, everything's nice and beautiful, and then sit behind your technological computer, tv, monitor screen, cars, etc. and want to live the same life you have. Really? It doesn't exist, and never will. Our society is inherently risky, why? Because it's a human condition. It's not perfect, bad things happen. And when it does, you do what you can to fix it, not sit there and blame someone because they're "conservative" or support "capitalism". Nice try.

But there's one thing you're missing, and that's the key problem here. Yes, there is inherent risk in life. But that doesn't mean we can't take steps to mitigate that risk. And, like the DUI example, we don't just accept infinite risk. We don't accept people driving down the street if they can't see straight, we ban that practice because its going to kill people.

 

Similarly...in a working world, in the world where capitalism works right, you don't accept things like banks that are leveraged 40 to 1 against the assets they're holding, because a 5% decline in their asset values destroys every bank they do business with. You don't accept people drilling without bothering to know what they're drilling into. You don't accept people drilling without working batteries in the blowout preventer. You don't accept a company's word that their products are safe, you check them...especially when they're not liable if people get hurt.

 

The reason why we're pointing fingers at the deregulatory philosophy of the last 8 years...and to an equal extent the last 30 years, is that all of those precautions, the things that worked for 50 years to prevent a recurrence of the depression, the things that might have worked to prevent this spill, the things that keep food safe, the basic expectation of a fair system...they are the precautions that have been stripped away, by both parties, over the last 30 years, in the zeal for/worship of the fair market as the cure for everything.

 

There's a word we came up with for what's been going on in this country..."E Coli Conservatism". Kill off all of the protections, leave it to the government to deal with the consequences, and then say "See the government can't do anything right" when the reason it isn't working is that at the top it was decided to kill off all the protections. If you end all of the inspections by the FDA through cutbacks because you promise me that the unregulated free market can police itself, you can't expect me to not be mad if people die of E Coli. If you allow unrestrained drilling and don't even mandate the safety precautions that everyone else in the world does, and you tell me it's ok because the market will police itself, you can't be surprised if I get mad when the market doesn't police itself and the livelihoods of a few million people are destroyed.

[kapkomet]

When you're driving with a BAC of 0.2, and you run into another car and kill a few people...that's still an accident. But it's an accident in exactly the same sense as this was. It's an accident that is entirely preventable. When that happens, you don't just throw up your hands and say "Oh, well, there was nothing anyone could do". You throw the driver in jail.

 

But there's one thing you're missing, and that's the key problem here. Yes, there is inherent risk in life. But that doesn't mean we can't take steps to mitigate that risk. And, like the DUI example, we don't just accept infinite risk. We don't accept people driving down the street if they can't see straight, we ban that practice because its going to kill people.

 

Similarly...in a working world, in the world where capitalism works right, you don't accept things like banks that are leveraged 40 to 1 against the assets they're holding, because a 5% decline in their asset values destroys every bank they do business with. You don't accept people drilling without bothering to know what they're drilling into. You don't accept people drilling without working batteries in the blowout preventer. You don't accept a company's word that their products are safe, you check them...especially when they're not liable if people get hurt.

 

The reason why we're pointing fingers at the deregulatory philosophy of the last 8 years...and to an equal extent the last 30 years, is that all of those precautions, the things that worked for 50 years to prevent a recurrence of the depression, the things that might have worked to prevent this spill, the things that keep food safe, the basic expectation of a fair system...they are the precautions that have been stripped away, by both parties, over the last 30 years, in the zeal for/worship of the fair market as the cure for everything.

 

There's a word we came up with for what's been going on in this country..."E Coli Conservatism". Kill off all of the protections, leave it to the government to deal with the consequences, and then say "See the government can't do anything right" when the reason it isn't working is that at the top it was decided to kill off all the protections. If you end all of the inspections by the FDA through cutbacks because you promise me that the unregulated free market can police itself, you can't expect me to not be mad if people die of E Coli. If you allow unrestrained drilling and don't even mandate the safety precautions that everyone else in the world does, and you tell me it's ok because the market will police itself, you can't be surprised if I get mad when the market doesn't police itself and the livelihoods of a few million people are destroyed.

 

Where you are wrong is no one ever says a "pure free market" is the answer. But that's how it gets labeled, and now we have this arguement that is started incorrectly before it even starts, because you are assuming either the worst or at best, incorrectly. No one is "kill(ing) off all of the protections", not even close. It's easier to villify the other side when you frame your entire arguement as such, though, because that way you can point to the government as the only thing that works.

[Balta1701]

No one is "kill(ing) off all of the protections", not even close.

Well, if we haven't killed them all off...it couldn't be more plainly obvious that we've killed way, way too many of them off. In every sector I can think of.

 

And that is a specific goal of one particular political wing. And that wing is the one we're coming down hard on here.

[kapkomet]

Well, if we haven't killed them all off...it couldn't be more plainly obvious that we've killed way, way too many of them off. In every sector I can think of.

 

And that is a specific goal of one particular political wing. And that wing is the one we're coming down hard on here.

 

 

"We're", yup. Got to have that falsification in place, otherwise, Democrats couldn't hold power in government. I used to disagree with the statment that Democrats=government, but you just proved that true.

 

Now, for the assumption impaired, again, no one ever said there should be no regulations. Ever. But nice try on that falsification. It has to be that way in your world to make any arguement work, but not in my world. And I'm glad I can see more then one side to an issue, any issue, as you say.

[Balta1701]

Now, for the assumption impaired, again, no one ever said there should be no regulations. Ever. But nice try on that falsification. It has to be that way in your world to make any arguement work, but not in my world. And I'm glad I can see more then one side to an issue, any issue, as you say.

Frankly, if you're not acknowledging that there is a very motivated, very wealthy, very influential lobby...which is led by the Chamber of Commerce and which has been absolutely key to the "Conservative" movement of the last 30 years...that will oppose any and every regulation proposed, and which opposes enforcement of regulations on the books, and lobbies for every regulation out there to have either giant loopholes inserted or to be removed, then you haven't been paying any attention at all to where your side has led this country,.

[kapkomet]

Frankly, if you're not acknowledging that there is a very motivated, very wealthy, very influential lobby...which is led by the Chamber of Commerce and which has been absolutely key to the "Conservative" movement of the last 30 years...that will oppose any and every regulation proposed, and which opposes enforcement of regulations on the books, and lobbies for every regulation out there to have either giant loopholes inserted or to be removed, then you haven't been paying any attention at all to where your side has led this country,.

 

 

False equilvalancies will lead to bad assumptions. They don't "oppose any and every regulation proposed". Nor do they "have either giant loopholes inserted or to be removed". But if that's your starting point for every conversation, it's no wonder you're a) so hateful and b-) wrong about your views. It's interesting that your jumping point on every arguement is this assumption and then you can't possibly understand why the continuous march to more and more regulation could be viewed as wrong by "conservatives" (which you don't even understand what true ones are anyway, because you don't really want to I don't think, it's easier for you to lump them in as Timothy McVeigh types).

[Balta1701]

You can say the platitude that "They don't "oppose any and every regulation proposed". Nor do they "have either giant loopholes inserted or to be removed"

 

But you know what I can do? I can then point out the fact that required environmental and safety reviews on drilling haven't been done and weren't done on this platform. Or that the 2001 energy task force stripped out regulations that the rest of the world were using. Or I can go to Wall Street for about 30 minutes of line items. Or I can go to the classic case of the FDA actively refusing to allow beef producers to even privately test their cattle for mad cow disease in order to protect the factory farmers that didn't want to test theirs. Or I can go to safety regulations in coal mines. Or I can go to FEMA. Or I can go to the health care industry. Or I could go to gun regulations.

 

If I'm wrong...I'm somehow wrong despite overwhelming evidence.

[kapkomet]

If regulations aren't enforced, that's different then not having them. That's most of the problem.

 

Yet, we better not enforce those laws on immigration, because otherwise, it's racist.

 

It cannot be both ways.

 

Don't add regulation, reform it. REALLY reform it. But as I said in a post earlier, there's too many penis pushers for that to ever have that happen.

[Balta1701]

there's too many penis pushers for that to ever have that happen.

Yup.

 

And they all work as lobbyists. Because they all represent companies that benefit if it doesn't.

[StrangeSox]

Thank you, kap. I think you've done a fair job of pointing out the difference between hardcore libertarians (who would want complete deregulation) and the typical conservative position.

 

But, as Balta's and my own's analogy with drunk driving pointed out, you can't call it an "accident" and then remove responsibility for what happens. It's really looking like this was a completely preventable situation but that there were multiple systemic failures; some in government, many in the companies owning and operating the rig.

 

And then you go back to your strawman argument of accusing Balta and myself of professing luddite beliefs while using technology. I think it's safe to say that neither of us are anything close to that. We just want responsible energy policy and responsible economic policy. We're a long way off from that. I don't oppose oil drilling 100%, but I do oppose lax regulations, poor enforcement of what little regulation there was and completely ignoring what all of the scientists are saying about risk levels and potential environmental impact. I oppose faulty test reports and sub-standard equipment. I oppose not really having any sort of plan in place before a disaster happens.

 

It may not typically be the stance of "deregulate everything" that conservatives take, but there is definitely a position of "government is the problem" and that the free market is the best solution to sorting out these problems. That ideology is simply unworkable at such large scales and with so much inherent risk.

 

I find this article depressing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil...amp;twt=nytimes

[lostfan]

Where you are wrong is no one ever says a "pure free market" is the answer. But that's how it gets labeled, and now we have this arguement that is started incorrectly before it even starts, because you are assuming either the worst or at best, incorrectly. No one is "kill(ing) off all of the protections", not even close. It's easier to villify the other side when you frame your entire arguement as such, though, because that way you can point to the government as the only thing that works.

Because there really is no such thing as a "pure free market" there needs to be certain regulations and the state needs to artificially prop certain things up and intervene sometimes, and it's not necessarily a bad thing, there would be no market without it. Only the most hardcore libertarian from 1885 would argue otherwise although that particular ideology has been proven unworkable over time. I know this is not exactly what you're talking about but it gets lost in translation and rhetoric all the time.

[Balta1701]

I find this article depressing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil...amp;twt=nytimes

Yeah, we knew this was coming.

 

It's really convenient how those probably-kind-of-toxic "Chemical dispersants" make it so that the oil sinks, rather than coming to the surface where the amounts of it can be measured.

 

Anyway, it's that currently undersea oil that is going to destroy the fishing and tourism industries around the entire Gulf for the next generation.