Slashdot Mirror

The water wars are going to get nasty very soon. The US Federal government is trying to get greater control over all water. They diverted a great deal out of the San Joaquin Valley, which devastated the farms, put 40,000 farmers out of work, and forced many farmers to sell off their land cheap or hand it over to the Federal conservation programs for relief.

The Bush's bought a lot of land in Parguay, which prompted a lot of speculation, but the big deal is that the land sits on top of one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world, giving them control of all that water.

T. Boone Pickens himself gets it, too. I'm skeptical whether the whole wind idea was real, anyway, as it created an excellent diversion from speculation what his land purchases were all about. As it turns out, the land he now owns and/or controls gives him access to a huge portion of America's fresh water supply, as it's sitting in a mid-west aquifer that he now has right to drain.

Even wonder that the show might be on the other foot, that the Bank of America knowingly dealt with criminals of all sorts including terrorists and that is what they really fear.

You mean like how the KKK can still use their BofA VISA to support the boys in the hoods.

He has crossposted it to DailyKos also -> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/14/928855/-Why-Im-Posting-Bail-Money-for-Julian-Assange

There are a small handful of votes where Ron Paul has voted in a way that would be upsetting to left-liberals (gay adoption in DC comes to mind), but aside from that, I don't think there is anyone in DC more passionately committed to personal freedom than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is anti-science, anti-choice, anti-separation of church and state, a liar (in that he's given two contradictory stories about the controversial racist statements that appeared in his newsletter), and either a racist or incompetent to run a 'zine.

A great deal of his faux-libertarianism is about removing federal safeguards against state governments and big business fscking you over. Ron Paul wouldn't know personal freedom if it bit him in the ass.

The fact that he still makes more sense than most of the G.O.P. is an indictment of the conservative movement, not an endorsement of Paul.

Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare to give its money to Wall Street, which is the Republican platform as it always has been. The witch hunts of course are just distraction so that real story isn't reported to the people, and to weaken Democrats who would try to stop the heist.

Joe Miller is the Republican. He says Social Security is unconstitutional, clearly his pretext for handing it over to Wall Street. He wants to take away Americans' voting for our senators directly, and says the minimum wage is unconstitutional, despite longstanding Supreme Court decisions supporting them, so his idea of what the Constitution is and is worth is an open question.

McAdams' ad wearing Stevens' tie is obviously a message about bringing Alaska Federal pork just like Stevens was beloved to do, and without which handouts Alaska would shrivel and die. He's not going to witch hunt anyone, because those handouts have been protected by Democrats as well as Republicans.

So yes, your mileage may vary. There are many roads to an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. But both Miller and Murkowski are active climate change deniers, even as climate change hits Alaska harder than any other state, as the Arctic is the most sensitive to the changes. Which is why either of them in the Senate will be voting for exactly the kind of witch hunt this story in Virginia is about. The witch hunts where they help impeach the Democratic president for some imaginary nonsense are just the price of admission to the modern Republican caucus they're spending all their time and money fighting to be counted among.

Announcing the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials isn't that hard. All it would take would be a little reviewing of documented UFO sightings to agree that yes, we're pretty sure that something's out there that's not us, and it makes blinky lights every few years then vanishes.

Announcing that we have the faintest idea what it/they/wazooga is/are/wzu and that we've met it/them/wzoop - that would be a lot harder.

Can change someones status from civilian to domestic terrorists overnight.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/25/905259/-UPDATEDWheres-the-Change-FBI-Raids-Peace-Activists,-Confiscates-MLK-Photo

Indeed, if you study the literature of the 40s-50s sightings this kind of stuff is not new. Documented military UFO sightings are fun reading, though I pity whatever intelligence unit got lumped with trying to make sense of them. There are definite patterns in the sightings, but the phenomena don't really fit either any known terrestial technology, weather effect, hallucination, or optical illusion. Whether that implies 'aliens' in the Steven Spielberg sense is anyone's guess - I would suggest probably 'not' - but it seems to be a thing which happens, which can't really be categorised, but is real nonetheless.

'These phenomena are not apparently harmful to national security' is the most sensible box to file them under... until they do things like taking missile silos offline. Then it's like, wtf, we still don't know what these things/events are, and they don't really seem that organised a threat (or even sentient - sometimes they really do act like optical illusions or dumb playful animals/insects), but they appear to have done something we can't control to systems we can't afford to admit we can't control. But still with no apparent intelligent pattern we can discern.

This is not something any smart military wants to be forced to admit, and fortunately the laugh-it-off reflex generally covers everyone's butt. But even military guys get old and start talking eventually (whether they are saying the truth is another matter). This book/conference is another instance of this.

It's really quite fun if you get into it. The X-Files 'Jose Chung's "From Outer Space"' pretty much summed up the vibe of the actual reports. Whatever you think you understand about what UFOs are, the actual sighting reports probably don't fit your hypothesis. They're not quite real, not quite not-real either, they haven't (so far) invaded us and carried away our womenfolk in their slavering mandibles (apart from abduction experiences, which seem to be something else again and mostly occuring in a dreamstate).

One thing I sure as heck don't believe is that we've ever shot one down, despite the constant (and contradictory) Roswell rumours. Witnessed "landings", yes, but not dented them with slugthrower shrapnel. We're not even sure these things are physical in the same sense we are, they don't seem to play by gravity, they might not even be actually present, so why would our bullets do anything?

Saturday Night Uforia is a blog which has covered a lot of the original source material - well worth reading IMO if you like strange-coloured piils.

The Turner Diaries etc don't define US gun culture, which is quite diverse.

This guy is no closet Klansman waiting for the Apocalypse:

http://catb.org/esr/guns/

Nor is she:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

"For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. "

Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.

The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.

While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.

Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you, but woe betide the government that goes too far. Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.

Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/5/893426/-WARNING:-Money-launderers-using-moslems-as-red-herrings

Yes, it is totally about Islam being above criticism, and has nothing to do with this guy being sleazy all the way through.

Seriously, this kind of paranoia makes no sense. There is nothing preventing people from criticising Islam, or any other religion. There are criticisms, though, which are sufficiently hyperbolic and unfounded that they don't get much sympathy or protection.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

Read the article, it puts the position forward far better than I would have. It should enlighten you a bit as to the question of why we would need a right to bear arms in the first place. The Amendments are about enumerating unalienable rights to all people, and there is no need whatsoever for the Second to have been drafted were it only to allow for hunting weapons, militias, or any such nonsense. It was written by Thomas Jefferson for crying out loud! You remember the 'water the tree of liberty' guy?

Besides, the federal government proved in 1861 that it will go to any and all lengths necessary to prevent citizens or territories from seceding. Your right to rebel doesn't exist either in theory or in practice.

This is a bit of a stretch, historically. The Civil War was more about 'North vs South' than it was about reuniting anything or freeing anyone. Are we really to believe that Sherman's behavior was in any way out of character in context of the conflict? And wasn't it the South that fired first? I know the version presented in primary and secondary education is all neat and clean, but as an adult you really should realize that nothing in the real world ever genuinely is so.

Nevertheless, the Amendment was not repealed and would even today trump all other law since written.

sounds like she should be looking for another job

Do you really, really just want to listen to such music? Because you know, you can already. You can go listen to local bands and ask for their demo tapes, and stay away from all the artists that belong to some label working with RIAA.

Except, you can't. Venues have to pay "preemptive royalties" (mafia protection) so they don't get sued for local artists playing cover songs. They can collect royalties for songs they don't even own. And they have no intention of making sure even their own artists are fairly paid, either.

Nice try, but the full-auto and other MILITARY weapons aren't from US gun stores, nor are the grenades. The Mexican authorities cherry-pick the serial numbers they release in a game of blaming the US.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12366467?source=pkg

"I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government."

Elections don't have much to do with freedom. Hitler was elected, lest ye conveniently forget. Even the Kos folks finally "get" the Second Amendment.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

As the border situation deteriorates, police cannot protect everyone (most of what cops do is inherently reactive, not pre-emptive, and there are very few of them. It is wise to be armed with something that has reach and plenty of ammunition.

Yes, the administration is focusing more on robotic exploration and cancelled Ares -- but Ares was a huge boondoggle that had already been surpassed by a private company using a fraction as much money. Congress is currently trying to keep the pork flowing by keeping the development of various Ares components going even though the rocket that they're to be used for has been cancelled.

A manned mission to Mars is meaningless apart from being a feel-good thing that future alien species could read about in the ruins of our civilization. A manned colony on Mars is not. A manned colony means becoming a two-planet species (and eventually, a near-infinite planet species). The distinction is that a colony is either self-sustaining or is capable of becoming self-sustaining if an emergency makes it necessary. A colony doesn't expand itself with inflatable habitats imported from Earth covered in martian regolith; it makes the habitats, too. A colony doesn't build with regolith bricks cemented with plastics from Earth; it makes the plastics. A colony doesn't fill Earth-made rockets with methane made on Mars; it makes the rockets. It's not enough just to use local resources; you have to be capable of producing every last part for every last system locally -- and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make such a production line, and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make *that*, and so forth.

Various presidents have committed to putting a person on Mars. None have committed to building a *colony* on Mars. And that's what really matters. We shouldn't be blowing our budget on feel-good joyrides. We should be spending it on lowering launch costs and on the obscenely massive amount of engineering needed to make a true Mars colony feasable. This will take a long, long time, and huge amounts of money. But if we never start, we'll never reach the finish line.

I did a series on the subject over here, called "The Colonization Of Other Worlds":
Part 1: Beyond the Space Elevator: A Glimpse of Alternative Methods for Space Launch
Part 2: Where Will We Begin?
Part 3: Who Will Bring It About And Why?
Part 4: The Industry Dilemma

Yes, the administration is focusing more on robotic exploration and cancelled Ares -- but Ares was a huge boondoggle that had already been surpassed by a private company using a fraction as much money. Congress is currently trying to keep the pork flowing by keeping the development of various Ares components going even though the rocket that they're to be used for has been cancelled.

A manned mission to Mars is meaningless apart from being a feel-good thing that future alien species could read about in the ruins of our civilization. A manned colony on Mars is not. A manned colony means becoming a two-planet species (and eventually, a near-infinite planet species). The distinction is that a colony is either self-sustaining or is capable of becoming self-sustaining if an emergency makes it necessary. A colony doesn't expand itself with inflatable habitats imported from Earth covered in martian regolith; it makes the habitats, too. A colony doesn't build with regolith bricks cemented with plastics from Earth; it makes the plastics. A colony doesn't fill Earth-made rockets with methane made on Mars; it makes the rockets. It's not enough just to use local resources; you have to be capable of producing every last part for every last system locally -- and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make such a production line, and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make *that*, and so forth.

Various presidents have committed to putting a person on Mars. None have committed to building a *colony* on Mars. And that's what really matters. We shouldn't be blowing our budget on feel-good joyrides. We should be spending it on lowering launch costs and on the obscenely massive amount of engineering needed to make a true Mars colony feasable. This will take a long, long time, and huge amounts of money. But if we never start, we'll never reach the finish line.

I did a series on the subject over here, called "The Colonization Of Other Worlds":
Part 1: Beyond the Space Elevator: A Glimpse of Alternative Methods for Space Launch
Part 2: Where Will We Begin?
Part 3: Who Will Bring It About And Why?
Part 4: The Industry Dilemma

Yes, the administration is focusing more on robotic exploration and cancelled Ares -- but Ares was a huge boondoggle that had already been surpassed by a private company using a fraction as much money. Congress is currently trying to keep the pork flowing by keeping the development of various Ares components going even though the rocket that they're to be used for has been cancelled.

A manned mission to Mars is meaningless apart from being a feel-good thing that future alien species could read about in the ruins of our civilization. A manned colony on Mars is not. A manned colony means becoming a two-planet species (and eventually, a near-infinite planet species). The distinction is that a colony is either self-sustaining or is capable of becoming self-sustaining if an emergency makes it necessary. A colony doesn't expand itself with inflatable habitats imported from Earth covered in martian regolith; it makes the habitats, too. A colony doesn't build with regolith bricks cemented with plastics from Earth; it makes the plastics. A colony doesn't fill Earth-made rockets with methane made on Mars; it makes the rockets. It's not enough just to use local resources; you have to be capable of producing every last part for every last system locally -- and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make such a production line, and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make *that*, and so forth.

Various presidents have committed to putting a person on Mars. None have committed to building a *colony* on Mars. And that's what really matters. We shouldn't be blowing our budget on feel-good joyrides. We should be spending it on lowering launch costs and on the obscenely massive amount of engineering needed to make a true Mars colony feasable. This will take a long, long time, and huge amounts of money. But if we never start, we'll never reach the finish line.

I did a series on the subject over here, called "The Colonization Of Other Worlds":
Part 1: Beyond the Space Elevator: A Glimpse of Alternative Methods for Space Launch
Part 2: Where Will We Begin?
Part 3: Who Will Bring It About And Why?
Part 4: The Industry Dilemma

Yes, the administration is focusing more on robotic exploration and cancelled Ares -- but Ares was a huge boondoggle that had already been surpassed by a private company using a fraction as much money. Congress is currently trying to keep the pork flowing by keeping the development of various Ares components going even though the rocket that they're to be used for has been cancelled.

A manned mission to Mars is meaningless apart from being a feel-good thing that future alien species could read about in the ruins of our civilization. A manned colony on Mars is not. A manned colony means becoming a two-planet species (and eventually, a near-infinite planet species). The distinction is that a colony is either self-sustaining or is capable of becoming self-sustaining if an emergency makes it necessary. A colony doesn't expand itself with inflatable habitats imported from Earth covered in martian regolith; it makes the habitats, too. A colony doesn't build with regolith bricks cemented with plastics from Earth; it makes the plastics. A colony doesn't fill Earth-made rockets with methane made on Mars; it makes the rockets. It's not enough just to use local resources; you have to be capable of producing every last part for every last system locally -- and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make such a production line, and all of the parts and raw materials needed to make *that*, and so forth.

Various presidents have committed to putting a person on Mars. None have committed to building a *colony* on Mars. And that's what really matters. We shouldn't be blowing our budget on feel-good joyrides. We should be spending it on lowering launch costs and on the obscenely massive amount of engineering needed to make a true Mars colony feasable. This will take a long, long time, and huge amounts of money. But if we never start, we'll never reach the finish line.

I did a series on the subject over here, called "The Colonization Of Other Worlds":
Part 1: Beyond the Space Elevator: A Glimpse of Alternative Methods for Space Launch
Part 2: Where Will We Begin?
Part 3: Who Will Bring It About And Why?
Part 4: The Industry Dilemma

The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?

Probably because that's exactly the conclusion that the first group of military experts assigned to investigate UFOs came to. The 'ET hypothesis' was not received well by the US military, and certainly did not become the official explanation. But it was out there, and people in a position to see the early evidence were thinking along those lines.

The really interesting question to my mind is not, is it plausible that Winston Churchill may have reached such a conclusion a few years earlier than the public record shows (though that is both interesting and plausible to me), but why did the actual, documented, paper trail of Project Sign in 1947 reach such an out-there conclusion - even at substantial risk to their careers?

Think of the terrorist babies!

(Part of the GOP 14th Amendment repeal discussion today -- scroll down to Fox Business News Eric Bolling/ Rep. Louis Gohmert quote.)

Never heard of fallout?

OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.

Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.

Well, here's some good information showing that Republicans are nuts.

OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.

Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.

Well, here's some good information showing that Republicans are nuts.

Pretty much all the gas or liquids that vented from TMI unit-2 were dumped into either the local atmosphere and/or river. None or very little of it was trucked away for safe disposal. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/3/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Islandnuclear-power "Startling revelations on Three Mile Island & nuclear power"

Fine, I'll help out here. Here's a links to the Harris poll and the Research2000 poll. I believe those are the ones being referred to here.

OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.

Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.

>TMI turned out to be a big non-incident

Go find out how much of the total fuel load (by weight) of TMI Unit 2 is "missing".

Go find out how many hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of high-level radioactive water (containing long-lived isotopes) were released into the Susquehannah River (which flows into Chesepeake Bay, a major source of seafood), and how owner/operator GPU didn't feel it necessary to inform the NRC about the release.

Go find out how much radioactive gas was vented from the Unit 2 containment, on how many occasions, and what isotopes were involved.

Go find out how much radioactive water containing tritium was intentionally evaporated from Unit 2 because it was easier and cheaper than gathering, containing, safing, and shipping it to off-site storage.

Go find out why Dr. Helen Caldicott et alia couldn't get any MSM to show the video and photos she and her people made of the obvious radiation-induced damage to farm animals that had been in utero near TMI Unit 2 when it went fizz.

Go look at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/3/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Islandnuclear-power

Go get at least a couple of clues.

Or go get bent; either is fine with me.

>TMI turned out to be a big non-incident

Go find out how much of the total fuel load (by weight) of TMI Unit 2 is "missing".

Go find out how many hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of high-level radioactive water (containing long-lived isotopes) were released into the Susquehannah River (which flows into Chesepeake Bay, a major source of seafood), and how the owner/operator didn't feel it was necessary to point out that release to the NRC.

Go find out how much radioactive gas was vented from the Unit 2 containment, on how many occasions, and what isotopes were involved.

Go find out how much radioactive water containing tritium was intentionally evaporated from Unit 2 because it was easier and cheaper than gathering, containing, safing, and shipping it to off-site storage.

Go find out why Dr. Helen Caldicott et alia couldn't get any MSM to show the films she and her people made of the obvious radiation-induced damage to farm animals that had been in utero on the downwind side of TMI when it went fizz.

Go look at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/3/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Islandnuclear-power

Go get at least a couple of clues.

Or go fuck yourself, either is fine with me.

Based on what, exactly. When has their front-page analysis been cloudy-minded. Diaries don't count, since many of them are written by fanboys.

I am not sure if you count this one since it's a diary, but it was on the front page. That will be my example of cloudy-minded analysis for the day.

Come on man, Kos is writing a book comparing the Republican party to the Taliban. While entertaining, that's hardly a way to set the stage for an unbiased, clear-minded discussion.

Bleh. Actually my favorite is still the Dkos diary commending Obama for his "pragmatic" offshore drilling policy, a couple of weeks before Deep Horizon blew up. The diarist, who spent months telling us how great mandates and excise taxes would be, hasn't been seen much since them.

lol hilarious. Poor guy.

These three political cartoons just about sum up the situation for me:

Obama's "moderation".
Pissing away the largest majority since the 70's, then trying to blame inaction on Republicans.
WTF is Obama doing, anyway?

Except the latter cartoonist needs to do a follow-up cartoon, where Obama decides to see just how much shit he can get away with (assassinations of American citizens, gutting Social Security) before he loses the fanboys.

Your blinders are showing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018561.php

http://gawker.com/5286144/the-rise-of-right+wing-violence

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/21/73725/4486

http://mnpublius.com/2010/03/gingrich-right-wing-violence-is-dems-fault/

...but you'll also find liberals complaining about Obama placing U.S. citizens on CIA hitlists - something you wont find from the teabaggers.

Isn't Obama going all Hitler-style on U.S. citizens all you hear from the teabaggers? Besides taxes, taxes, taxes, of course.

This, although I can't promise it's reliable, as it comes from the Daily Kos.

Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate.

Only if you're fond of false equivalencies, or an Obama fanboy. Of which there definitely are some on Dkos, but you'll also find liberals complaining about Obama placing U.S. citizens on CIA hitlists - something you wont find from the teabaggers.

Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate.

Only if you're fond of false equivalencies, or an Obama fanboy. Of which there definitely are some on Dkos, but you'll also find liberals complaining about Obama placing U.S. citizens on CIA hitlists - something you wont find from the teabaggers.

They probably are relying on or hoping to attain the same standing RIAA has gotten through SoundExchange to collect broadcast royalties even from non-members.

So there is clearly precedent that suggests ownership and membership are not sufficient concerns to these types of organizations. Unless it is their material or members that is!

So in this case they are either seeking statute authority to collect song composing royalties for members AND non-members, or they intend to behave that way anyway and defend it on the premise that the copyright office already delineated similar powers to SoundExchange and that since ASCAP is a similar group to SoundExchange they are entitled to a similar wide scope of authority (performance royalties -> SoundExchange vs composing royalties -> ASCAP)

I'd really like to see this blow up in their face and get both groups rights to even try this sort of thing revoked, but there are too many MAFIAA members in DoJ (and probably other parts of gov't) now and they have the administration's support (much to my dismay as I do generally otherwise support the administration). So this could get ugly and have bad consequences quickly.

I really hope the copyleft groups start gathering funds and resources in a way to respond to this head on. I'd support it.

About RIAA lawyers at DoJ:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/

About RIAA/SoundExchange:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

ahem...

Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA.

Different types of shoreline, different shapes, require different configurations. Your numerous anchor points (for this spill those would be 1-yard cement blocks with tie-off buoys) need to be chosen so the boom-tenders (you) can adjust the ropes, slanting the booms this way and that to account for changes in wind and current. Booms are tended 24/7, by the way.

You divert to a catch basin. You are not building the fucking Great Wall of China. You are diverting oil so you can then drain it out.

So even if the feds had given them all the boom in the world, they still would have fucked up the deployment and made it all worthless anyway.

Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA.

Different types of shoreline, different shapes, require different configurations. Your numerous anchor points (for this spill those would be 1-yard cement blocks with tie-off buoys) need to be chosen so the boom-tenders (you) can adjust the ropes, slanting the booms this way and that to account for changes in wind and current. Booms are tended 24/7, by the way.

You divert to a catch basin. You are not building the fucking Great Wall of China. You are diverting oil so you can then drain it out.

Bobby Jindal doesn't know what he's doing here, guys. He's fighting an oil spill like a war or a flood. You block this pass off with these dirtbags and mounds of dirt, you're gonna kill this marsh. The life here evolved with the current that moves through this pass. Nutrients, oxygen... you're creating a slackwater zone in a marsh that is used to tides and current. There's little critters that keep the algae off the grass stems and reeds. They need oxygen and a specific salt-freshwater mix. They eat the algae and keep the grass healthy. You kill them and the marsh becomes a big flat of rotting vegitation. But... where did you get that dirt? 300 yards inland? That dirt's poison for this marsh. Couldn't be worse than if you brought it from Nebraska. It's alien fucking dirt in this environment. It's worse than the fucking oil. And Jindal will leave it here forever if we let him. Lets get that shit out of here and we'll all get together and lay some fucking proper fucking boom.

. See here for relevant background:

you get the idea. It's fucking obvious. Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA. Looks kinda involved, doesn't it? It is. But if fucking proper fucking booming is done properly, you can remove most, by far most of the oil from a shoreline and you can do it day after day, week after week, month after month. You can prevent most, by far most of the shoreline from ever being touched by more than a few transient molecules of oil. Done fucking properly, a week after the oil stops coming ashore, no one, man nor beast, can ever tell there has been oil anywhere near that shoreline.

Bobby Jindal doesn't know what he's doing here, guys. He's fighting an oil spill like a war or a flood. You block this pass off with these dirtbags and mounds of dirt, you're gonna kill this marsh. The life here evolved with the current that moves through this pass. Nutrients, oxygen... you're creating a slackwater zone in a marsh that is used to tides and current. There's little critters that keep the algae off the grass stems and reeds. They need oxygen and a specific salt-freshwater mix. They eat the algae and keep the grass healthy. You kill them and the marsh becomes a big flat of rotting vegitation. But... where did you get that dirt? 300 yards inland? That dirt's poison for this marsh. Couldn't be worse than if you brought it from Nebraska. It's alien fucking dirt in this environment. It's worse than the fucking oil. And Jindal will leave it here forever if we let him. Lets get that shit out of here and we'll all get together and lay some fucking proper fucking boom.

. See here for relevant background:

you get the idea. It's fucking obvious. Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA. Looks kinda involved, doesn't it? It is. But if fucking proper fucking booming is done properly, you can remove most, by far most of the oil from a shoreline and you can do it day after day, week after week, month after month. You can prevent most, by far most of the shoreline from ever being touched by more than a few transient molecules of oil. Done fucking properly, a week after the oil stops coming ashore, no one, man nor beast, can ever tell there has been oil anywhere near that shoreline.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/20/112720/800

I don't think that's fair at all. Instant gratification? We've moved beyond forty fucking days.

Do you have *any* idea at all what it takes to control a blowout of this magnitude? If the media had focussed on the facts, explained the technology and indicated the options in a sensible fashion, we'd all be better informed. Everyone with an ounce of oilfield experience and/or a semi-functional brain would probably have realised that the real solution required relief wells. This is calm and patient work that quietly proceeds whilst cofferdams, top-kills and junk shots capture the media's attention.

And in the meantime, maybe the media should focus on what's going on with the booming efforts since this gusher is going to continue spewing oil for months. Think BP could at least focus on getting that right?

Stopping the spill? Sure. They're throwing lots of money at the problem, and stuff's still not working. Of course, they have other motivations to do that -- for one, presuming they can eventually stop it, they can also turn it into a viable drilling operation again. Also, every second that leak isn't plugged is more waste -- the same oil that's ruining the local ecosystem is also oil they can't sell, unless it's cleaned up, which costs a lot more than just pumping it up from the ocean.

But what about cleaning up the coastline, now? What about doing proper fucking booming? And what about the sheer fucking carelessness that lead to the accident in the first place?

Apparently they're not even doing the booming right.

Money isn't the issue here. This is costing BP a fortune.

And yet, they are not yet out of money, and they could be spending more, i.e. to do the booming correctly to contain the slick. Which they are not. Which suggests that it's about money.

This goes deeper than just not wanting to spend money to clear it up - in truth they don't lack any amount of money, they just don't have a clue what to do.

that is complete bullshit. They're not even doing the things they know how to do. They're not even trying!

Sigh... what a fucking waste of time, energy, and resources this all is. Those photos are depressing especially of the kid's foot with oil on it.

I wish I was seeing more photos of proper fucking booming than feel-good animal cleaning. I found this article on the survival rates of birds that were cleaned and released.

Proper fucking booming would've been a good start.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School

I don't want fast action and strong leadership, because the same happens what happened in the bad old days: leaders that go to war, are only interested in their own agendas, start idoitic programs to suppress minorities, are susceptible to corruption and lobbyists etc etc.

Uh... that all sounds pretty recent, some more than others.

What would be nice is a gov that doesn't 1) Let companies do stuff that, in the case of shit+fans, has the potential to ruin lives and livelihoods without backup plan after backup plan with resources and/or the ability to quickly get resources in to handle the problem, and 2) Holds their ass to the fire when they fuck up and have either ignored or been ignorant of safety plans and mechanisms that should have been in place.

This interests me greatly though I won't hold my breath in anticipation: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/25/869677/-Civil-fine-for-oil-spilled-so-far-could-total-$13-billion

Rig exploded April 20th so that's about five weeks and let's go with that 5k barrels a day. 5000*35*4300= $752,500,000

That's a good start.

How about fining them for continuing to use that disperant EPA has told them to stop using?

Will top kill work? I don't have the knowledge to know the answer, but http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/21/868490/-Fishgrease:-Booming-the-Top-Kill put an interesting perspective on it.

Given that the monologue they are using is from a poster at the very liberal DailyKos, you might be kind of dumb.