White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report

bonch writes "The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report by reordering paragraphs to make it appear as though a seven-member panel of independent experts supported the six-month ban on offshore drilling. The IG report states, 'The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,' but the panel had only reviewed a draft of safety recommendations and not a drilling ban. The White House has issued a statement saying that there was 'no intentional misrepresentation of their views.' This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."

Comments

I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing really ever changes.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

I only came here to see the breadth of excuses the left-wing vocal majority on /. were naturally expected to offer, but I was surprised y'all were so anxious that you even beat out the frosty piss folk. Now that's dedication to distraction!

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if people would only realize that since nothing has changed, BOTH sides suck.

Two sides of the same evil coin. Why do you keep returning to the other side expecting anything different?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[interkin3tic]

This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry. That's a somewhat refreshing change... or would be if the effect of the report was something more than uniting the oil lobby and republican partisans. And I suspect that unlike the the last administration's report diddling, I get the feeling that this is actually going to backfire on the current administration. That's change.

Democrats: we may not be any more honest, but we screw up so spectacularly when we lie that it's -almost- like we're more honest.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals - not worth the bullets to shoot 'em...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[gujo-odori]

Absolutely. I'm a Tea Partier, more or less, but one who believes we are wasting our time with the GOP. It can't be salvaged. We're better off making a fresh start with a new party and forming alliances with other fiscally conservative individuals or groups. I don't mind if they are socially liberal or whatever; sound economic policy and maximum liberty are what matter.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[rockout]

If we had a fiscally conservative, socially liberal third party to turn to, I'd turn to it, but if you're offering up the Tea Party ("more or less") as your alternative to the two parties we have, no thanks. Godwin's law beckons.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[kimvette]

There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of (libertarianism is NOT about "anything goes" despite what many claim). However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents. Unfortunately that is usually the GOP, which at this point may as well merge with the Democratic party and name the newly formed party "Republicrat."

What we need is more people like Ron and Rand Paul in office - fiscally conservative, against a nanny state, and believe that government exists to protect the borders, punish evildoers, and maybe build roads (since roads are essential for national security).

We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry.

Are you sure?

In general, reducing the supply of something increases prices. Now who do you suppose wants higher oil prices?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Restil]

While a strong third party system would be a nice idea, it's simply politically unrealistic. Like it or not, until a third party can reliably capture 33% of the vote, any vote for such a candidate is practically equivalent to voting for the party you oppose. As monumental a task as it would be, it would be far easier to completely reform one of the two major parties (either one of them), than to bring a third party to power with sufficient numbers to actually make a difference.

However, with a 40 year plan in mind, you MIGHT make some headway if you can find a large number of people who want NEITHER major party in power any longer. That poses some difficulties though, because most people will at least politically align themselves with one party or the other to some extent. They might hate one party, but they hate the other one more. That sort of thing. So to politically align yourself with a third party will likely mean that you will share at least SOME ideals with one party or the other. It'd be difficult to form a party that has nothing in common with either republicans or democrats and still get a majority of people to vote that way. A political party dedicated solely to the murder of kittens would be such an example, but you're not going to get many takers.... unless, of course, you can find a lot of people that REALLY hate cats. What would psychotic felinicide have to with politics? Nothing at all. But cat haters just might be willing to vote on that issue alone and disregard everything else. Of course, that's not an issue most people would be willing to get behind. So find another. Something that is so precious to enough people that they would be willing to disregard EVERY OTHER ISSUE just to be sure that the supporting party gets elected. Junkies would probably support drug legalization as such an issue, but there aren't enough of them, and besides, you'd have to get them to show up to vote. Perhaps WOW addicts could be united against any anti-video game push.

Or you could try to find some issue that would appeal to the 50% of people that don't vote at all. They seem to be pretty apathetic about the political state of affairs as it is, so there's no party loyalty to get in the way. However, if they're too apathetic to vote NOW, what issue could possibly change all of that? The secret to the success of a third party system relies in solving these puzzles. Good luck!

-Restil

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people, who through no fault of their own, get cancer? Who is supposed to pay for that? All these behavioral-based health issues are largely strawmen. The fact is there are a lot of very sick people, and the sickest with least probability of return on productivity are the most expensive to fix. So no matter how you slice it, either we have to get together and share the pain of these individuals or we have to just let them die.

I'm not discounting fraud as a method to reduce cost, but I guarantee it is maybe 10% at most of the cost of health care that needs to be covered.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we at least have some regulation making it so the purveyors of said twinkies and hohos are not permitted to advertise in our school children's exercise or colouring books?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here! Here!

NoAgendaShow.com
CreatorsEdgePress.com

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Foolicious]

If I had a quarter for every time some guy unnecessarily kissed Ron (and now Rand) Paul's fiscally-self-satisfied ass on Slashdot, we wouldn't need fiscally conservative politicians because I could just pay for everything the country needs out of my quarter-for-every-time-someone-kissed-Ron-Paul's-ass-fund. I could be the nanny state you've always dreamed of. And all because of your figurative leg humping of the Paul family. Vote for Paul!

Re:I hope you like your change.

[kimvette]

That's why individuals can buy insurance. :)

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

yay no dept of education

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Feyshtey]

Who bought them the exercise and coloring books?

How about we target the people who should be ridiculed and condemned? How about we publicly shame the morons that allow irresponsible materials -including inordinant amounts of twinkies and hoho's- to be put into children's hands? THE IDIOT PARENTS that cant be bothered to read what they put into their kids hands, or regulate what their kids eat, or research appropriate diet and exercise.

If it takes a state law banning toys in Happy Meals to help make kids healthier then we're already completely fucked, because obviously the bulk of parents arent even remotely qualified to be parents.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[wierd_w]

What a lovely bunch of ad-hominems-- There they are standing in a row...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking libertarians...
GOVERNMENT IS BAD, FREE MARKET WILL SAVE US ALL!
Do you realise that if there was no government regulation then the USA would be in the same situation as China?

Pollution, fuck it, the free market will stop that, never mind the 10,000 dead or dying people...

What do you mean I have to pay a twenty thousand dollar exit fee? Its only a $25 per month contract, but wait, no regulations so the corporation can do whatever they want.

Crap, my car just got stolen because some guy who got sick lost his job and needs to support his family and pay off his hospital bills.

Don't like your cable company? Change to a different one. Wait, there is no other competition because of the libertarians, all regulation was removed and TimeWarner bought it all out and has raised the price of entry into the market too high for anyone else. Maybe we should try ADSL? Wait, no can do, the cable companies don't want the competition..

I mean come on, seriously, go look at China and then remove any laws and/or regulations and then put that into the USA. Do you really think that BP would give a shit about cleaning up the broken well if there was no government to tell them to? What about the fracking? It would get a lot worse if there was no regulations against it, and it is bad enough as it is...

Finally, what most of you americans don't realise is that if you raise the bottom end of the standard of living, you will reduce crime and raise the standard of living for everyone. If you don't like the nanny state regulations (like a law against eating fatty foods) then do a Rosa Parks, actions speak way louder then words and if you can get enough people to agree with your stand then the government will have no choice but to reconsider the laws...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.

While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy." In order to eat healthy, you have to either prepare all your meals from good ingredients that you were careful to select and careful to read all the small print on the boxes, or you drove to the other side of the city to get to the Organic Foods Coop, where all the stuff sold can be assumed to be good. It shouldn't be a pain to eat right, but americans are bombarded with shit on a daily basis.

Some clever prosecutor has used the PATRIOT ACT to prosecute some really unlucky crack dealer. I think that we can stand a few lawsuits like this against BigBURGER and their lobbies, and BigDESERTS and their lobbies (STOP SELLING DOG SHIT AS FOOD).

Yes you can claim that people eat the way they want... but if it was just the opposite of the way it actually is, if americans were bombarded with advertising for HEALTHY food, if the store shelves were filled with healthy food and you had to look hard for the tasty bad stuff, I assert that there would be, in the US, far less obesity and diabetes (the latter, as it happens, has been cured, btw... in a Toronto Lab about 4 years ago... think BigPHARM will ever allow this cure into the US? How much insulin is sold in the US annually? Too much to allow a cure, I can tell you that much).

ok, rant over... go libertarians...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[wierd_w]

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but the main reason why all these "green" devices and such are being pandered, is BECAUSE of the "increased oil prices."

Personally, I think it is GREAT that we are being overcharged-- why? Because it FORCES the issue of change away from this demonstrably destructive energy source. Are the alternatives "good" ones? Probably not, if you are looking for something to sate you hunger for cheap energy, so you can continue being wasteful with it---

In effect, this only benefits oil comanys in the short term; in the long term, it will drive the engine of necessity-- the necessity to replace oil.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[OakDragon]

As a wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Re:I hope you like your change.

[lorenlal]

Hey... I read plenty to my kids. I read them this great story about a blood elf mage that just totally pwned that dwarf warrior. It was sweet.

It was just really hard to tell the kids what that dwarf was saying... But it was so epic.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[davester666]

You mean life is like a reverse lottery. If you're rich enough, you can afford to be able to pay to avoid/prevent/fight random chance.

If you're poor, well, I guess it sucks to be you.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[interkin3tic]

Now who do you suppose wants higher oil prices?

You're suggesting Obama had the moratorium to please OPEC? Because -our- oil industry seems frothing mad about it.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[jumpinp]

The U.S. isn't setup for more than a two party system. Starting a new party would be a wast of time, no one other than a handful full of local politicians would get elected. The liberal party is your closest bet, That would still be a long shot as our culture is setup on the good old boys mentality. It is easier to influence a smaller group than the whole country. it's all about who you know, younger generations join the groups they best connect with. Friendships are made, and influence is a matter of fact. you are who your friends are. Change takes time and the tea party knows what they are doing. Historically, are major party's have changed ideology considerably.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Tom]

We don't need a nanny state.

I love how everyone who has no idea about governance thinks that the second you step beyond the barest minimum, you are in nanny state territory. Has none of you ever heard about shades of grey?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents.

Sounds like a great plan. Sorry, we ran out of ballots.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

There are 2 reasons one might get cancer :

1) bad genes (bad in the sense that they gave you cancer, although no matter how good your genes, eventually you'll get cancer. I believe that there are theoretical calculations that seem to indicate that if humans ever were to become 152 year old, cancer prevalence would be 100%)
2) bad behavior (with smoking as number 1 cause)
3) someone else's fault (employer buying building that's insulated with asbestos)

Clearly in the case of 2) people should pay for it themselves. That's only fair (of course, not a part of Obama's plan at all). In the case of 3) there's a case of civil liability, and the responsible party should pay. I don't think there's any argument about these cases.

In the first case there are 2 actions one might do. You could fix it (but not the genes themselves) at great cost, and continuous cost. Now obviously I'm 100% in favor of insurance companies, or private persons doing this. And dead against the government doing it. Why ?

Because of what darwinism states will happen if we expend public resources to attempt to equalize genes. It's not just, unfortunately, that the group with defective genes will grow. Unfortunately it's worse. If you were to succeed at saving these people, it would no longer matter if someone was born with good or bad genes. That disables natural selection, and the consequence of this is that genetic information of the entire population will be erased (randomized to be exact).

Now obviously leaving everyone to their fate is not a good solution either. But there must be balance. So why not simply use the capitalist solution : IF someone, even with partially defective genes (we all have defective genes, just defective in different ways. Some defects turn out to be godsends, that's how evolution works) manages to bring more benefit to society than it costs to fix him/her, the of course that's fine.

Of course, that's exactly how the OLD system worked before Obama. IF you can pay for the treatment you should be treated.

Now there's the idiotic illusion that Obama's system is somehow better. And for a remarkably short period of time it will be better. But fraud will increase, followed remarkably close by a large increase in the permanently ill population (just look to European countries). After that, it will be much worse, because Obama will have to cut corners to control costs (you should visit a public hospital in Brussels and talk to the staff, and there will be little doubt as to why/how this is happening). Eventually (after 100 years or so) the entire treatment system will collapse (in brussels it's already largely collapsed. Docter's are forbidden from spending more than 10 minutes to diagnose a patient. Needless to say, this leads to mistakes. Quite a few mistakes in fact). In Holland, the essential (and cheap) treatment of dialysis is denied to the eldery, for cost cutting reasons. If you need dialysis, for obvious reasons, you'll die in months.

The sad fact is that the holocaust, when it started, was directed against those that were overloading the healthcare system. Did you know the first victims of the holocaust ? It was permanently ill mental patients, whom nobody visited anymore. Then permanently ill normal patients (for instance, these cancer patients). Then it was expanded to anyone needing permanent medical care (ie. the handicapped). Then to undesirables (meaning POW's first, later it meant Jews, why ? Essentially because the nazi state promised absurd social services, and rather than cutting the social services, they "reduced the pool of the needy" shall we say). As the nazi state collapsed further it was extended and extended, and before long Germans understood that hospitals under the care of nazis were deathtraps (Russians found out the same about socialist hospitals a mere decade later). Eventually, the state collapsed to the point where water, food, and shelter were denied to most people.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

*complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science*

Poor Scientists, the White House might be trying to cut its budget, and this might be making the lifespan of recreational expenses shorter for our most reputed Academic experts.

If this is what happens, we can understand that they loudly complain.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents.

Let me get this straight: libertarians don't have a chance to win, because people like you refuse to vote for them? You sure have a funny deeds for someone who says pro-libertarian things.

We don't need a nanny state

That's right, we don't. Some people say we need government in order to keep people down and demoralized, but your voting strategy shows that people are quite willing to do that to themselves.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's worse than that. They pulled this straight out of the final 20 minutes or so of In The Loop where Malcolm Tucker (Spin Doctor) coerces a minister to doctor a report regarding the invasion of Iraq (WMD findings, if I remember correctly) to read as though it is actually a report in favour of the invasion. Paragraphs are moved or removed, dates are changed... Shit, I thought that film was a satirical comedy, not a documentary.

If you've not seen it, see it. Peter Capaldi (Tucker) is hilarious.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Synonymous Homonym]

Government is not telling you you can't eat poison.
The Government is telling you you can't sell poison disguised as food.

And when you fall ill through no fault of your own, wouldn't it be nice to have an economic safety net to tide you over until you recover? The more people participate, the cheaper it becomes for everyone.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Mindcontrolled]

You know, if you quote latin names for logical fallacies to sound superior, you should perhaps learn to identify said fallacies first. There is not a single ad hominem fallacy in there. Just a bunch of plain old - and much needed - insults. Not to speak of the fact that an argumentum ad hominem is first of all a rhetorical figure, but not necessarily in all cases a fallacy.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Anonymous Coward]

> However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents.

See that sentence right up there, that one right above what I'm typing right now? That is the problem. If you act like this, then YOU are the problem. A vote for a candidate that "can't win" is NOT a vote wasted. A vote for someone you don't support is a vote wasted.

Take a look at what just happened in the UK this year. We very nearly beat the two party system to vote in a third party. The pre-election polls were indicating a yellow party landslide. What happened? Come election day, a significant number of the third party supported pussied out (encouraged by lots of desperate scaremongering from the two main parties, of course) and decided to "tactically vote" for either red or blue. The result was a hung parliament, a compromise between the yellows and the blues. Better than a straight out red or blue victory, but not the result we could have had. We blew it.

Not that I am entirely in favour of all of the yellow party's policies, but it would have been worth it to shatter the two-party system. Maybe it will serve as a lesson for the next election, or for other countries. I live in hope, fool that I am.

So the moral of the story is: vote for who you believe in, and fuck who everyone else is voting for. That is the only way for democracy to work. The two-party system you have now is NOT democracy, it is a monster with a red head at one end, a blue head at the other and a murderous, thieving, deceitful beast in the middle that sucks up your freedoms and your taxes and shits out nothing but jackbooted evil.

For the record, I disagree with your libertarian politics.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[ThatsNotPudding]

What we need is more people like Ron and Rand Paul in office - fiscally conservative, against a nanny state, and believe that government exists to protect the borders, punish evildoers, and maybe build roads and curbstomp anyone with a different opinion.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[TheRaven64]

Do you realise that if there was no government regulation then the USA would be in the same situation as China?

So, doing very well economically, shame about the conditions of the serfs? I think they know and think it sounds great. Just sucks if you don't happen to be one of the ruling elite.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Notquitecajun]

For me, I occasionally vote libertarian, but I think that they have several core turnoffs. One is their no-holds-barred stance on marijuana (which a lot of the US doesn't want legalized) and their non-pro-life stance (which can actually have a libertarian, non-religious viewpoint).

Re:I hope you like your change.

[TheRaven64]

The show's funny, but my favourite thing about it is that they actually employ someone with the job title of 'swearing consultant' to help write Tucker's lines. I cringe to imagine what would happen to it on US television. They'd probably beep the entire show...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Feyshtey]

While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy."

So your argument can be boiled down to: "It's too hard for me to spend 10-20 minutes preparing meals that dont even need refrigeration or cooking that I can easily carry with me and eat throughout the day. Especially considering that doing so would save me money. I'm so fucking lazy that I need the government to force private business to give me healthy fast food so that I can be healthy while being lazy... "

Re:I hope you like your change.

[makomk]

Which, of course, was loosely based on an actual event in UK politics in which a report regarding the invasion of Iraq was doctored by politicians in order to read as though it supported the invasion. I seem to recall there were several similar incidents, too...

Re:I hope you like your change.

[inviolet]

You mean life is like a reverse lottery. If you're rich enough, you can afford to be able to pay to avoid/prevent/fight random chance.

If you're poor, well, I guess it sucks to be you.

Once you see the power that incentives have on our behavior, you'll understand why "it sucks to be poor" creates efficient societies.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Johnny5000]

We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.

About 60%+ of Americans are overweight.
Apparently they do need someone telling them what they should and shouldn't be eating, because they sure can't figure it out on their own.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[operagost]

If you really think that having wealth depends on the roll of the dice instead of hard work, determination, and education, you're sadly mistaken.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[operagost]

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

Filter er n't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't any caps. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't use ilter error: Don't use so many caps.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[phlinn]

What are you smoking that makes it possible to believe that china has fewer regulations than the USA?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[phlinn]

Note that the person who did that had a plausible claim that he feared for Rand's safty, and was dismissed as the head of the local group of Rand Paul supporters for doing that.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[yourlord]

Well, I consider myself a libertarian and I'll explain to you my positions on both of those issues.

On Marijuana (or any drug for that matter).. It's not my place, your place, or anyone else's place to restrict how another person chooses to live their life, so long as they are not directly harming another by their actions.. I can't think of any situations where someone sitting in their chair taking bong hits and watching South Park while eating cheetos qualifies as directly harming another person.

It's called freedom. Look it up.. It's a good thing.

On abortion.. No person has a right to tell another person they are not allowed to attempt to remove a cancerous tumor, parasite, or any other growth that the person does not want. A fetus is nothing more than a clump of tissue growing within and feeding off the host. It's hard to pin down the point at which that clump of tissue deserves protection under the law as an independent human being, but logic forces me to conclude that independence has to be the primary factor. With that in mind, I would say the only reasonable answer is to have the medical community come to a consensus based on medical science and technology, on the average stage of development of a fetus at which it has a greater than 50% chance of survival, with no major defects, outside the mother.. That point can be reviewed from time to time to account for medical advances. Once established, abortion before that stage is perfectly fine, after that stage is murder.

Is it perfect? Nope.. But it's a *reasonable* balance between the right of a person to exercise medical control over their body, and the rights of an independently viable human before birth.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[alexo]

There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of (libertarianism is NOT about "anything goes" despite what many claim). However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents.

You, sir, have just demonstrated why you are the prime reason why "they don't have a chance of being elected".

I hope you are proud of yourself.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Johnny5000]

On abortion..

There's also a lot of pro-lifers who are libertarians, based on the belief that the fetus deserves the full rights of an adult human and it's not within the mother's rights to infringe on the rights of the fetus.

Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian nor a pro-lifer.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[slick7]

Government is not telling you you can't eat poison.

Of course they are, the bought dogs of big pharma, the FDA says so.

The Government is telling you you can't sell poison disguised as food.

Of course they are, see above comment.

And when you fall ill through no fault of your own, wouldn't it be nice to have an economic safety net to tide you over until you recover?

You mean like forced healthcare? The politicians should be mandated to the same healthcare they are shoving down the necks of their employers

The more people participate, the cheaper it becomes for everyone.

Isn't that what Bernie Madoff said of his Ponzi scheme?

Re:I hope you like your change.

[kimvette]

While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy." In order to eat healthy, you have to either prepare all your meals from good ingredients that you were careful to select and careful to read all the small print on the boxes, or you drove to the other side of the city to get to the Organic Foods Coop, where all the stuff sold can be assumed to be good. It shouldn't be a pain to eat right, but americans are bombarded with shit on a daily basis.

So, People with food allergies and intolerances already have to read the labels on everything, and avoid fast food for the plague it is.

What I hate is that cows are now fed corn instead of grass, so their immune systems suffer. Rather than fixing it the right way by letting them graze, what is the USDA-approved fix? Pump them up full of drugs. On top of that, they want the animals to fatten up 3x faster than they normally do, so they feed and inject the animals full of growth hormones and other nasty stuff.

Whereas if the cattle were raised naturally (I hesitate to use the word "organic" since all food is organic in nature) and fed what they were to naturally eat, the meat would be healthier, people would likely get fewer cancers, and there would be less of a need to destroy essential enzymes in food through pasteurization.

The odd thing is that all of this happened through regulation; substances considered non GRAS by the FDA has been allowed to be used in practically every processed food on the market. meat packing and dairy companies have successfully changed how the USDA and FDA regulate our food sources to encourage unhealthy meat due to how animals "should" be raised, and how milk is produced, and if you raise and slaughter animals more naturally (and humanely) you risk getting raided by federal agents.

All this happened through corporate america's hijacking the system and getting regulation passed. The problem is, it regulates the system so it works to better their pockets, and not for the good of the country.

Watch Supersize Me and Food, Inc. for some insights into just how broken a regulated system can be, and how a corrupt system can enforce the production of substandard product.

As far as processed vs. whole foods go - yes, it is often hard to find food to eat on the go, but snacking on pecans and a jug of milk is a hell of a lot healthier than getting a Big Mac or Whopper.

I'm thankful that I can't eat soy because it forced me to open my eyes to what really is being done to our food sources, and what the root cause of it all is, and how the government enforces the destruction of our food sources.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Sally Forth]

The more the liberals do, the more like this life gets. Just ten years ago, I was working-class and allowed to fight for what I needed. Now, I'm still working-class, but I must blindly accept what the government gives me (if anything at all) and, in return, I am not allowed to fight for it.

Pardon me, I'm in a very bad mood, I just found out that changes due to Obamacare is making it VERY difficult for me to get my baby's medication for her. Ever since these guidelines started getting put into action, I've had trouble getting needed care for my family for the first time EVER... even when we had no insurance it was easier and cheaper than this.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Sally Forth]

"It's hard to pin down the point at which that clump of tissue deserves protection under the law as an independent human being"

Let me see if I can help you with that.

The unborn resembles a 'clump of tissue' for about one week, maybe two at most. At five weeks (three post-fertilization), the heart begins to beat. Three weeks later, doctors are able to detect brainwaves from the unborn, and the unborn is capable of moving independently. At this point, most women have missed one period, but as missing a period is not unusual for a woman, most women will not have had their pregnancy test.

By the time the average woman discovers that she is, in fact, pregnant, the unborn is a tiny creature with head, body, arms and legs, hands and feet, with a beating heart, independent movement, brain waves, and the reflexes necessary to avoid pain.

As for independence: Though a newly orphaned baby is capable of surviving without the birth mother with sufficient care by other human beings, it still needs a great deal of human presence and attention. "Failure to thrive" is a phenomenon in which babies, usually in places like orphanages, waste away and die despite plentiful food/warmth/cleanliness due to nothing more than lack of another person's physical presence.

Human beings don't even understand the concept of being a person independent of his or her mother until after the first year of post-birth life.

This is why many people who emphasize independence above all else in answering the abortion issue tend to advocate infanticide up to the age of 2. I'm not accusing you of holding to this viewpoint. I just want you to be aware of its dangers.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Sally Forth]

Interestingly, many more people are overweight now than before the government started taking on the job of telling them what they should eat, and obesity is higher in groups that are under more government control.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Rakarra]

I'm interested in hearing what your take is on the Tea Party these days. About 6-12 months ago, I had somewhat... optimistic hopes for them, and felt they could be a much-needed transformative force for the Republican Party. However, looking at the various "Tea Party" Republicans from the last election, I'm not seeing a real difference between them and, say, the Republican crop of 1994. I see the same governmentalist intervention bullshit in social circles (anti-gay-rights, religious education in schools, etc), the same lip-service to lower taxes, smaller government, government is the enemy and problem that the neo-conservatives came up with in the Reagan Revolution.

From where I sit, it looks like the Republican Party completely conquered the Tea Party. I see little deviation from the old Republican Party line in the newly elected crop of Tea Partiers. It's quite depressing.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[gujo-odori]

Uh, you realize that the US was not always a two-party system with its ensuing lack of choice; there was no intent for such a thing when the country was started, nor is there anything in the Constitution that "sets up" a two-party system. Indeed, Washington himself warned against the dangers of having political parties at all.

You're right, change takes time. If we start out now with a new party dedicate to the principles of liberty and fiscal conservatism, 50 years from now that party may control enough seats to at least reign in the GOP and the Democrats.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[jumpinp]

By "Set up" i meant there are a number of significant barriers to getting a third party elected. The main parties have done a good job at boxing out minority groups. Media coverage ignores them. Ballot laws are an obstacle for them to get listed. Our voting system of all or nothing makes voting third party a waist of time. Third party candidates aren't aren't even invited to the debates. The libertarian party has been struggling with this for a long time. It is far easier to change the ideology of the majority parties. There goals aren't set in stone and have changed considerably from when they were started.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[Notquitecajun]

I ALMOST agree with that viewpoint on marijuana; the problem is the same with the matter that I think the whole "victimless" issue is WAY overstated, and the dangers are understated. No, it doesn't bother me until the guy expects me to pay for his medical care or deal with him on the road when he runs out of munchies.

Treat it like alcohol and smoking - harsh enforcement for people driving high, keep it out of public use.

And "logic" can easily tell me that the factor is life, and that life CAN start as soon as a fertilized egg is made.

Re:I hope you like your change.

[yourlord]

You won't catch me trying to force you to pay for anyone's medical care.. That being said, it's not justifiable to use the fact that we live under a socialist system as a reason to oppress others. If you ride that train you'll find the track ends at government enforced control over every single aspect of your life because virtually EVERYTHING you do can potentially have a cost which can be passed onto society under a socialist system.

Life for an ant starts at fertilization, and I have no problem dropping terrific amounts of poison on their homes.. A cancerous tumor has life, but I'm not going to use the business end of a gun toted by a government thug to force you to live and die with it.

Where you see a human, I see a slug of flesh with no sentience, and incapable of independent survival without leeching off the organ functions of the host. I won't be marching on Washington to force you to continue carrying an unwanted tapeworm, and it has about the same mental capacity and life experience as a 1st trimester fetus.

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[ColdWetDog]

Politicians screw things up again, confuse issues, try to get a certain spin on things!

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About it!

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[ColdWetDog]

Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[dhall]

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Cue CSI: Miami intro?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

And yet, there are still people who get all bent out of shape when the other guy wins or they're soooo happy when their guy wins.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's is amazing how it's laughed away when one side does it, but it's the worst thing in the world the other does it.

Ain't hypocrisy grand.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[hedwards]

Sigh, you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right? I mean K street, Iraq, Katrina or the present economic crisis, these are not minor things, but significant instances of corruption and incompetence. But then again, it's not like reality has anything to do with it.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Feyshtey]

Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.

Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are called "cheerleaders" and they are the first to get fucked.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions. Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.

Not forgivable, no. But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either, which is what tends to happen. Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen. We'll keep bouncing from one set of crooks to another. Unfortunately, the ones who have to make those reforms are the ones that benefit the most from the status quo.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[BlackSnake112]

They are called "cheerleaders" and they are the first to get fucked.

You obliviously never saw the cheerleaders at my school.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[commodore64_love]

>>>you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right?

They appear to be similar magnitude to me. Let's count the ways that I hate BOTH the republicans and democrats

- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom
- Republicans - passed the damnable Patriot Act
- Democrats - passed the Patriot Renewal Act when they should have killed it
- Republicans - started a damn war
- Democrats - won congress and could have ended the war, but instead expanded its scope
- Republicans - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by Katrina
- Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill
- Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas
- Republicans - Won back the house, and now they want to go to war against Iran (rumor)

Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Feyshtey]

You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Dunbal]

Yeah, just like sports fans. Or religious zealots. Wait a second, could there possibly be a connection?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Svippy]

You can always vote for a third party and waste your vote!

God, I love first past the post...

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.

No, I was just going with the implicit concession you made in your statement that the lies that got us into the Iraq war, and those in all the various other scandals of the last administration were bigger and more harmful than this particular one. This administration hasn't been around long enough to even come close to surpassing the lies of the previous administration. Your assumptions about the basis of my statement and my motivations are simply wrong.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[publiclurker]

Exactly which simpletons rated this blather insightful? Just because you personally do not consider something to be good (i.e. the stimulus) does not mean that knowledgeable people agree with you. Then again your signature shows you to be not only economically ignorant, but totally self centered. Fortunately, the grownups were able to prevent your ignorance from making things even worse.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[interkin3tic]

Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.

No, but this is politics we're talking about. Less corruption is better, but it's always going to be there. If you think your government is completely corruption free, that just means that they're really good at it. At least this lie didn't involve us getting into a war and didn't involve large amounts of tax dollars going to corporations. GGP suggesting that just because this politician was lying, that means he's no better than that other lying politician is naive at best.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[CannonballHead]

Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]

;)

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[toadlife]

Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom

Bullshit.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[interkin3tic]

...despite 70% opposition by Americans

Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.

I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

- Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill

That would be BP's responsibility, the gov't has done all that it can, though arguably it could've done more to prevent it (see TFA)

- Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans

But saved the economy and made a nice profit for the government

- Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans

But the same americans polled on the parts of that bill were much more in favor. And it provided many protections and extended coverage

- Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas

anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.

If you're going to accuse the democrats of something, at least look for their failures.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus reveals the illusion of choice. Two different colored vehicles with different music driving to the same place. Dont like the music or the color of the one? Get on the other! Hey, it's YOUR choice!! YOU have a voice!!! the third option is to drive in a circle and accomplish nothing. Welcome to america, land of the predetermined outcome. Grade school -> college -> job or more school + family = success. ...The only way to win is not to play...How 'bout a nice game of chess?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[selven]

Preventing a depression? All I see is delaying.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Bigjeff5]

This administration hasn't been around long enough to even come close to surpassing the lies of the previous administration.

And hopefully they'll be out of the White House before they can accomplish that particular goal.

They sure are trying though.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[FiloEleven]

The election system is not the biggest issue. Washington has a tendency to corrupt just about everyone who goes there, even people with the best intentions. (Election reform is also damn near impossible in the current environment.)

What is needed is the watchful eye and the accusing mouth of the public. Public pressure works better than anything else. Fortunately, the excesses of the Bush administration were obvious enough to get people to pay attention, which is why you see so much talk about the (often) relatively smaller excesses of the Obama administration. The Republicans just elected to the House and Senate are going to be watched very carefully--certainly not by their fanboys, but by the sizable number of swing voters who made it possible for them to be put into office.

America is waking up.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[cobrausn]

But saved the economy and made a nice profit for the government

Saved the economy? Can you prove that? Sounds like something fresh from a White House press release. More like made sure the people with all the money kept being the people with all the money, even though they've pretty much proven they should have lost it all.

And since when was the government supposed to take the public's money and make itself a nice profit using it?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Feyshtey]

Actually it wasnt an implicit concession at all. The only concession I made was that in the greater political stage this is a minor infraction. My statement was sarcasm playing on your obvious preconceptions. I've made no indication at all here about my political beliefs other than that being lied to by politicians pisses me off.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[wierd_w]

The question is-- Is the GP wrong, or was it that nobody wanted to admit to it? ;)

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Bigjeff5]

anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.

The trouble with this particular argument is it's impossible to prove false. It's like proving there is no God. Meanwhile we are deeper in debt than at any point in our nation's entire history, other countries are so leery of investing in the US that the US government is being forced to monetize more than half a trillion dollars, and we're still at just barely under 10% unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate has sat unchanged since May. Big freaking improvement.

The economy hasn't met any of the expectations which were set out as justifications for the bailout and stimulus packages, and yet we're expected to believe things are better off now than they would have been without these bills, even though not a single promise has been fulfilled?

The fact is, it is very likely we are setting ourselves for complete economic collapse. Look at what happened to the USSR before its collapse, the similarities are striking. In a lot of ways their structure before the collapse created the self-reliance needed to survive such a thing. We have nothing similar here, and if we can't manage to straighten things out it could well be our doom.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[cobrausn]

Did Wikipedia also tell you how many people didn't vote? I'm sure it does. I'm pretty sure 98.6% of those who voted does not even make up a majority of this country.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[interkin3tic]

You've got a point there, but I don't think the majority who didn't vote can safely be put into the "not fools" category.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[osgeek]

Yes, they're all idiots.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[osgeek]

Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen.

Yes, because reforms to our election system will make people care about politics more than the NFL, Nascar, American Idol, the WWF, and Jesus. Cure stupid and you can reform our election system AND our government.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[ArsonSmith]

they are different repubs would have spun this to be we need to drill more, not ban it.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[ArsonSmith]

A vote is only wasted if it is for something you don't want.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[osgeek]

Excellent point. People who claim that TARP and the stimulus had a positive or negative effect are mostly doing so based upon their political affiliation.

The fact that we had to sell our souls to have any effect whatsoever is why we're damned.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[pipelayerification]

I would like for any sane person to explain to me how taking money from the economy (taxes) and then magically putting it back in to the economy (stimulus) after running it through a horribly incompetent, inefficient, and corrupt government does anything but slow growth and stifle business. Oh wait... I keep forgetting how much smarter our political class is than us. Never mind.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Totenglocke]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against.

I'm with you - the war is pointless and a huge waste of money. However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Totenglocke]

I'm with you on everything except Katrina. That was a State level issue and the Governor and Mayor of New Orleans were responsible for dealing with it - after they proved utterly incompetent, they tried to claim it was a Federal issue (when no hurricane has ever been labeled as such) in order to shift the blame to someone else.

Sorry, but even if it's someone I dislike (such as Bush) I hate when people blame them for something that was not their fault in any way.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[freedom_india]

The King is dead. Long live the King ! ...and to think we all got hoodwinked by the "Change" mantra...

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.And you are still an ape in the jungle? It take 2 to tangle, And who voted almost unaimously to go to war? And fund the wars? And who has continued to fund the wars? As soon as we ALL get off the party thing, then the parties MIGHT actually work together.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

Ah the key is you think the stimulus money is coming from taxes - it's actually coming from the future and being passed into the economy now.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

Actually it wasnt an implicit concession at all. The only concession I made was that in the greater political stage this is a minor infraction.

That's exactly the concession I was referring to.

My statement was sarcasm playing on your obvious preconceptions. I've made no indication at all here about my political beliefs other than that being lied to by politicians pisses me off.

I have no idea what you think my preconceptions are, or how they could be obvious to you when I didn't write the post that you were responding to.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

The election system is not the biggest issue. Washington has a tendency to corrupt just about everyone who goes there, even people with the best intentions. (Election reform is also damn near impossible in the current environment.)

What is needed is the watchful eye and the accusing mouth of the public. Public pressure works better than anything else. Fortunately, the excesses of the Bush administration were obvious enough to get people to pay attention, which is why you see so much talk about the (often) relatively smaller excesses of the Obama administration. The Republicans just elected to the House and Senate are going to be watched very carefully--certainly not by their fanboys, but by the sizable number of swing voters who made it possible for them to be put into office.

America is waking up.

Yes, but when the current crop turns out to be just another set of corrupt suits, what are those swing voters gonna do? Vote Dems back in? Then Republicans again? Or will the economy recover and everyone goes back to sleep again?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[pipelayerification]

Still taxes. Just future taxes. Plus now we are going to pay for it with interest. Probably interest to China

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Solandri]

This is why a split government is so great. My party can take credit for all the good stuff that happens, while blaming the other party for all the bad stuff that happens.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A vote for evil is worse than a wasted vote. At least staying home on election day doesn't help justify these sick fucks belief that we all voted them in. I will never bow and scrape and beg for my freedom to live my own life in peace. I have more self respect than to do such a vile thing.

For those of you who vote to secure the lesser of two evils, consider this: What sort of person who seeks a position of authority that permits the initiation of violence against others should ever be supported? The one that points more guns at your enemies more than at you? As long as you are willing to admit that, then I have some respect for you... actually no, I still don't.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Feyshtey]

I have no idea what you think my preconceptions are, or how they could be obvious to you when I didn't write the post that you were responding to.

Really?

But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either

You should probably report the fact that someone is spoofing your name and posting here...

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[porges]

Future taxes don't take money out of our current economy, though, which was the part you found mystifying two comments up.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

I have no idea what you think my preconceptions are, or how they could be obvious to you when I didn't write the post that you were responding to.

Really?

But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either

You should probably report the fact that someone is spoofing your name and posting here...

Ok, now I'm confused as to which statement of yours you considered to be a sarcastic response to mine. While I see the sarcasm in your post that I first responded to, I don't see any in your response to my post.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Seraphim_72]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

Yellowcake

It started a war that killed 10s of thousands and crippled many Americans.

As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against.

I'm with you - the war is pointless and a huge waste of money. However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

Yes, because if he had taken office and yanked them out the next day you would hold him faultless. You would have been 100% behind that as two nations crumbled

Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy.

Here is some personal responsibility for you. You voted these assholes into office, you pay for their wars. Moreover, you send YOUR sons to die for this bullshit.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing a depression? All I see is delaying.

Don't you get it? That's the goal. Delay it until the opposing party takes over.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[pipelayerification]

Future taxes immediately introduce uncertainty in the economy. Personal savings rates go up. Business investment goes down. Risk taking behavior increases. http://www.jstor.org/pss/248251 Bond yields change and this in turn affects the income of many people (primarily retired people or people near the retirement age) as we are seeing now. These changes lead to money flowing out of the economy (and the country) in an effort to avoid the eventual increase in taxes. http://investoffshore.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/whither-future-tax-rates-hint-they-are-not-headed-downward/

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[LordKronos]

or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against...However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

You should have used the word Messiah earlier in your post. That way I would have know you were trolling before I got all the way to the end. WTF war are you talking about us continuing to fight? Afghanistan? He's ALWAYS said he supported that war and believed we needed to scale it up. Iraq? Well, as unfortunate as it is, we cannot safely just pack our bags and leave. We need to slowly back our way out of the mess. The troop level in Iraq is now under 50,000. That's about one third of the 140,000 troops that were there when he took office.

Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler

Give? You might want to learn about exactly how a loan works. There's quite a difference between giving and lending.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

Well, I'm pretty sure there's more than one example of this, but I'll give you one:
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/political-interference.pdf

Here's a choice quote:

The White House systematically minimized the significance of climate change by editing
government climate change reports. Documents obtained by the Committee show that
CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 181 edits to the
Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or
emphasize scientific uncertainties. They also made at least 113 additional edits to the
plan to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.
Other Administration documents that were heavily edited by the White House include
EPA’s Report on the Environment, the annual report to Congress entitled Our Changing
Planet, and EPA’s Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Compaqt]

Well, for one thing, it's not necessarily the same crop of people being voted in. E.g., there are 80 GOP freshmen in this house, different from the 2000-2006 Republicans who voted in the deficit increases.

If they don't cut spending, (many of) the Democrats voted into the next round will also be freshmen.

This is basically the R's last chance before someone like Bloomberg funds a third party. (The only reason Perot didn't succeed is because GOP operatives threatened to release Photoshopped pictures before his daughter's wedding.)

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

Well, for one thing, it's not necessarily the same crop of people being voted in. E.g., there are 80 GOP freshmen in this house, different from the 2000-2006 Republicans who voted in the deficit increases.

I don't think that just being new to Washington is enough though. Congress and the campaigns that have to be waged and deals that have to be struck to get there, not to mention actually doing anything once they're there, seem to ensure that they will be beholden to others and more susceptible to corrupting influences. Third parties sound great, but our election system is designed to preserve the 2-party system by ensuring that voting for a third party will help the least-favored party win.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Totenglocke]

First, just because I don't worship Obama as you do does not mean I'm trolling. But you, like so many others think that someone disagreeing with you equals trolling. Secondly we can easily pack up and leave at any time - that's how wars work...you go in, beat their ass and then (if you don't make their country part of yours) you leave. This whole bullshit of "nation building" is NOT part of war. Third, I guess you don't understand the difference between "loan" and "the government bought the goddamn company" - not to mention that Obama invented new bankruptcy laws to keep the UAW intact instead of using the normal bankruptcy laws which would've resulted in GM and Chrysler being sold off to the highest bidder. What Bush did was a "loan" (a loan that they only paid back by using MORE taxpayer money from the TARP bank account) - what Obama did was flatout buy the damn company. Lastly, you didn't bother to read what I wrote - I didn't say "edited a document" I said "then got caught and said "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"". I don't recall them trying to deny that they did it, as the current administration is.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Totenglocke]

Actually, I would have supported him pulling troops out. It is not our job to be the government of Afghanistan and Iraq. We've been "training" and "building" their troops and government for years now. If they don't want to take care of their country, that's their problem, not ours.

I only voted for people like Bush because the alternative was worse - that's why the US desperately needs to get away from the two party system where you're stuck voting for the lesser of two evils. Also, you're ignoring all the countless DEMOCRATS who voted for the war (the President can NOT declare war - only CONGRESS has the ability to do that) and even once the Democrats had a majority a couple years later, they continued to vote for keep the war going instead of voting to end it. I never supported the war and I sure as hell don't support this 10 years dicking around and not fighting a real war crap either. As for you wanting me to feel bad for soldiers? Fuck them. They sold their souls to the government to make a quick buck. They hide behind the lie of "defending our freedoms" while they fight a war that has nothing to do with our freedom - just like every war (save the Pacific theater during WWII) for over a century. They serve politicians NOT America. They're the ones that do horrible things just because they were told to and don't have the guts to do the right thing. They're the ones supporting assholes like Bush and Obama as they take away our freedoms and ass rape our economy.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who rolls out casualty numbers for the Iraq war really needs to look at history and get some fucking perspective. Remember Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, where more people died per week, month, and often DAY than died in the past 8 years in Iraq/Afghanistan combined, and that includes both sides and civilians.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Le Marteau]

One vote never has, and never will, make a difference in a race larger than perhaps a state congress, and even that has never happened and probably never will.

If you are deciding who to vote for because you think your one vote is going to change the election, you are delusional.

I vote because it's what Americans do, not because I am under some kind of delusion that my vote is going to make a difference.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting you haven't been to Iraq since the withdrawal of combat troops. I have (currently there), and guess what --- combat operations *have* ended, for real. And we're shipping people home earlier than expected, and progress has been made. Or were you talking about Afghanistan where Pres. Obama most certainly said he would expand upon if elected?

Oh wait, you wanted affirmation --- not information.

 

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[shentino]

Nobody even gets close to the campaign trail without kissing corporate ass.

You run as a republicrat, you have to sell your soul.

And any shred of decency you haven't shed to get into office is wrung out by political wrangling with people who have likewise sold their soul. And who will probably get marching orders to have your ass impeached if you piss off their corporate overlords.

Now, any attempt one makes to start a movement to change this, well, guess who owns mass media?

Does anyone follow me here?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[LordKronos]

First, just because I don't worship Obama as you do does not mean I'm trolling. But you, like so many others think that someone disagreeing with you equals trolling.

No, you aren't trolling because you disagree with me or don't like him. You are trolling when you start busting out your "Messiah" crap.

I don't have time to respond to all your crap, so I'll focus on the last one (since I've already bothered to explore that one in detail for you). So first, basically it sounds like what you are saying is "it's not really important that you tried to lie...what's more important is that when asked about it, you admit it". Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. But even more important, in the example I cited, the White House did NOT come clean about what it was doing. They were merely fixing up inconsistencies in testimony, as if they knew better than the scientists:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3772102&page=1

I'm sorry, but that sort of response is worse than the current one in question. Assuming both incident were maliciously done, the Obama response is "we didn't mean to do it" whereas the bush response is "oh, we meant it because we know the science better than the scientist, so we know what they MEANT to say".

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[stdarg]

Give? You might want to learn about exactly how a loan works. There's quite a difference between giving and lending.

That's wrong! There were two components to the bailout, a loan, which GM has already repaid, and a much larger equity purchase.

The gift aspect to the loan was that it was way below market rates, seeing as it was a company on the verge of bankruptcy with no hope of possibly repaying it except for the other component of the bailout.

The gift aspect of the equity purchase was more blatant. It's really a joke. At the time of the bailout, GM stock was worth less than $1/share. We could have bought the whole company for less than $1 billion. But instead we paid over $40 billion for a 60% stake. The breakeven price I've seen is over $130/share. But the IPO is priced way way lower than that. I mean, you see why that's being called a gift right??

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[LordKronos]

We could have bought the whole company for less than $1 billion. But instead we paid over $40 billion for a 60% stake.

Giving them $1 billion would not have solved their problem. They required a lot more than that. The choices were to either make a very unusual investment in the company, or to just let them close up shop. The latter wasn't really an option, considering how many people they employed and the effect that would have compounding on top of the rest of the countries economic problem, so it was believed making that unusual investment was the best option. Could they have demanded 100% of the stock? Sure, but considering the amount of crap the Obama administration already gets for the over-generous loan, imagine how terrible the blowback would be if we did an outright 100% purchase. It was really a no-win situation for Obama. Do nothing and catch shit for disaster. Do the loan and catch shit for "handouts". Buy it outright and catch shit about government owned industry and socialism. And in the end, they simultaneously catch shit about all 3 anyway. There was nothing he could do without a shitstorm coming his way, so he ignored the inevitable shit and did what he felt was best for the long-term health of the country. I don't want to debate whether he made the right decision, because I honestly doubt anybody here on slashdot is qualified enough to make that judgment.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[drinkypoo]

I follow you, so long as you don't think that Obama had a soul to sell. He's a rich white black man. Amusingly he, too, is descended from the same royalty that most of our other presidents are descended from. It's really the same bloodline aristocrats who have been running Europe since forever that are running and have always been running the USA, a handful of Nouveau Riche aside.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[drinkypoo]

Could they have demanded 100% of the stock? Sure, but considering the amount of crap the Obama administration already gets for the over-generous loan, imagine how terrible the blowback would be if we did an outright 100% purchase.

As one of the people who bought that company, I insist that the only reasonable thing to get for our money is 100% of the stock.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[stdarg]

Giving them $1 billion would not have solved their problem. They required a lot more than that.

Agreed. I'm just showing why calling it a gift is fully appropriate.

What pisses me off is you can give ANY business a $52 billion loan then only require a partial payback, and you know what, it's going to turn into a massively successful and profitable business because they got billions upon billions in free money. It's stupid and outrageously discriminatory. And why the hell did the unions get a share of the new company? They played as big a role in its failure as management, and management got nothing (rightly so). If you look at it proportionately, our government basically said "If you belong to this union, you get 1000x the benefit that other taxpayers will get." How can they even do that? It should be illegal.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

Yes, but the idea is that the economy will recover, grow stronger, then we will have more money to deal with the deficit.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[operagost]

The main point of the bill-- pushed by both the President and VP-- was that if the stimulus wasn't passed, unemployment would skyrocket to over 9%. If we passed it, it would stay below 8.

We passed it.

Unemployment is now 9.6%.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[phlinn]

Yeah, except bush wasn't actually lying about yellowcake. There is no evidence that he altered a report there. Try again.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[phlinn]

GM used other bailout funds to repay the loan. It's not exactly a shining example of responsible behavior.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[phlinn]

How about... TARP had no probably positive effects. The models which claim positive effects are the same models which predicted unemployment levels with no bailout which were lower than what we've actually gotten to...

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

That's also a common confusion. The bill was predicted to prevent unemployment rising, but the numbers were picked based on the current conditions rather than the conditions when it actually was enacted. By the time the bill was in action, unemployment was already at 10%.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

You know what also introduces uncertainty in the economy? The economy collapsing in a depression.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[KhabaLox]

they tried to claim it was a Federal issue (when no hurricane has ever been labeled as such)

Perhaps this is a bit of a nitpick, here are the Tropical Storms and Hurricanes that were declared Federal Disaster: 2010 Otto - US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico TS Nicole - North Carolina Earl - USVI, MA, NC Alex - TX 2009 Ida - AL, NY, NJ http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly which simpletons rated this blather insightful?

Possibly someone who, unlike you, knows what the word "insightful" means.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[RingDev]

It was actually very responsible.

The initial bailout they received under the Bush administration had 100% of the liability put on the backs of tax payers. If they had gone bankrupt, we would have all paid.

By using the money from the bailout they received from the Obama administration (for which we got preferred stocks, and 1st claims rights in a bankruptcy trial) to pay off the Bush bailout, they moved the liability from the tax payers, to the investors.

Now, GM has always had a tendency to advertise in half truths and market pure crap (see the amount they spend marketing "flex-fuel" compared to the amount they spent developing it). So the commercial with the boss man claiming they "paid off their debt" was completely ridiculous.

But as a tax payer, the Obama administration and GM accountants did some great work to improve our (the tax payers') situation.

-Rick

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

A vote is only wasted if it is for something you don't want.

Or when it helps the worst candidate of the bunch get elected over others that would be better to at least some degree. Our election system sucks because it forces this kind of choice on us rather than letting us actually rank our choices in some manner.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

One vote never has, and never will, make a difference in a race larger than perhaps a state congress, and even that has never happened and probably never will.

You're missing the point that that one vote that would put someone over the top wouldn't happen without all the other votes that came before it. Voting does matter, even if our current system tries to make it as difficult as possible for us to express our true intentions.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Dragon Bait]

Here is some personal responsibility for you. You voted these assholes into office, you pay for their wars. Moreover, you send YOUR sons to die for this bullshit.

Cool. I voted against Bush and I voted against Obama. Does that mean I can be exempt from paying for the war? And exempt for paying for the GM-bailout, health care, and the (what is it now 5?) trillion dollar debt that Pelosi and other people I didn't vote for ran up?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about... TARP had no probably positive effects. The models which claim positive effects are the same models which predicted unemployment levels with no bailout which were lower than what we've actually gotten to...

Your claim is quite dishonest. The models were using numbers from before the stimulus was passed, rather than when it finally did pass (and unemployment had already risen quite a bit).

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

>>>you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right?

They appear to be similar magnitude to me. Let's count the ways that I hate BOTH the republicans and democrats

- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom - Republicans - passed the damnable Patriot Act - Democrats - passed the Patriot Renewal Act when they should have killed it - Republicans - started a damn war - Democrats - won congress and could have ended the war, but instead expanded its scope - Republicans - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by Katrina - Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill - Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans - Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans - Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas - Republicans - Won back the house, and now they want to go to war against Iran (rumor)

Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

Some of those could be attributed to both, and I could probably double the size of that list. While I was opposed to the bailout in the way that it was done (although I can't help but believe the vast majority of economists that predicted utter doom for us if we didn't do it), and I was in favor of the health care bill even though I thought it had far too many concessions in it, and didn't addresss a number of issues that it needed to, I don't think that the opposition numbers you cite are terribly relevant, even if they were accurate, which I don't think they are. With all the misinformation being spread, of course there was opposition! The democrats were gonna pull the plug on Grandma!!! The guy on TV said so!!! It's no wonder we can't have rational conversations about policy anymore.

Aside from the bullshit we get from politicians, we have media taking sides and giving airtime to jackasses that will say anything they can think of to scare the shit out of people. With people like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh on the right, and Olberman and... well I can't actually think of any far--left pundits. They probably exist, but just not at the level that they get any real audience. Is Air America still around? I remember hearing some crazy left-wing stuff on that station a while back. I suppose my point is that while I generally agree that both parties have done plenty of bad, it's hard to even determine what is good or bad anymore because of all the deception and blind rage that is spewed over the airwaves. The outlets that try to stick to facts are overwhelmingly drowned out by the hyperbolic rantings of the outlets that just want to generate viewer/listener numbers, and are willing to put any whackjob on the air to do it.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[alexo]

Did Wikipedia also tell you how many people didn't vote?

63.0%

So 62% of Americans were fools to vote for either D or R
and 37% were fools to not vote against them.

In total: 99% fools.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[bonch]

- Republicans - started a damn war

Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Iraq War. Portraying it as Bush's war was sleight-of-hand on the part of Democrats trying to make people forget that they voted for it.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[bhiestand]

Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.

Assuming you meant this in line of Ds being different from Republicans in terms of confusing issues and spinning things, I'd like to agree with you... ...but you're still wrong.

Look at the last two years of American politics and tell me with a straight face that they were anywhere close. Republicans have been chanting about death panels, Obama's birth certificate, stressing "Hussein", and doing everything they could to cloud every single issue. Republicans couldn't even stand up and vote for the policies they themselves advocated simply because the Democrats were the one proposing them.

Democrats, on the other hand, largely influenced by Obama's Admin., have co-opted Republican ideas all along the way and have tried very hard to be pragmatic and introduce whatever reforms they could pass.

The two parties couldn't be further apart right now. Yes, they're both to the right of the socialists, and yes, they're both to the left of the KKK... but they are absolutely different on nearly every conceivable measure. Democrats have been attempting to engage in a real debate over policy (and engaging in some minor spin) while Republicans have been fighting everything 100% simply because they want people like you to feel this way.

Deny the Democrats any victories or achievements, disillusion the young, discourage minorities from voting (they actually did run ads telling immigrants not to vote this year), stir up controversy to bring the old folks out voting--these are the pillars of Republican strategy for 2008-2012... and the saddest part is that it's working.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[commodore64_love]

Yes but that's a positive thing.... just like the death of the slow, inefficient dinosaurs was a positive even that led to dominance by mammals. A depression kills the poor businesses (like GM) and opens room for better companies (like Ford) to fill-in the vacuum.

Noe the Depression of 1921 lasted less than a year, mainly because the government didn't do anything. Various businesses died but were replaced by better businesses.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[commodore64_love]

Choice is valuable. For example I told Comcast to fuck off, and used an antenna instead. If the Healthcare Reform Bill were applied to the CATV market, the government would fine me $950 for not buying the product.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Ksevio]

But in the time before a company like Ford filled the gap, the workers of GM and the whole supply chain would be out of work, doing even more harm to the economy. Much better to have GM reworked to a viable company.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[ArsonSmith]

except if someone loses due to missing votes from a 3rd party, that party may run someone closer to the 3rd parties views next time. This happened to a slight degree this last election. Many republicans lost in 2006 due in part to the large turnout of Libertarian voters. The Teabag the Democrats party formed within the republicans to answer this and this last election shows the results of that.

If you don't vote for what you want, you will always get what you don't want.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[Danse]

except if someone loses due to missing votes from a 3rd party, that party may run someone closer to the 3rd parties views next time. This happened to a slight degree this last election. Many republicans lost in 2006 due in part to the large turnout of Libertarian voters. The Teabag the Democrats party formed within the republicans to answer this and this last election shows the results of that.

If you don't vote for what you want, you will always get what you don't want.

Yeah, but that just gets us a Republican or Democrat that makes noises like a third party. I don't see this new crop being any different than the so-called revolutions that have happened in the past. Democrats in the 70s or "contract with America" Republicans in the 90s. We never end up with any real change. If we want to elect third party candidates, we shouldn't have to worry about a split vote, and we shouldn't have to settle for some watered-down version when one of the major parties pays lip-service to the third party for a while.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it.

[pipelayerification]

The problem I see is that GM is still saddled with unrealistic and non-market driven wages and benefits. It might just be postponing the inevitable. I am a huge GM fan but I think that had they been allowed to fail somebody would have purchased the brands or products that where popular or potentially profitable. Not everyone would have kept their jobs but this has been inevitable for years. It wasnt that long ago Ford was close to filing for bankruptcy. They made some good decisions and pulled it out of the fire but are still not the company they could be (minus oppressive government restrictions and union weight). The companies and unions have made their bed and should have to lie in it.

Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......

Never mind.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[AnonymousClown]

Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......

Never mind.

It's Clinton's fault! God! Some people are just so clueless.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Nadaka]

Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[blair1q]

This would never have happened under President Bush.

Nobody would have taken a second to analyze oil industry safety in his White House.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[couchslug]

"Wait a sec.....wrong administration......."

I'll just leave this here:

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[RightwingNutjob]

No, you've got it all wrong. If she'd won the primary, McCain would have won, and everyone could go on blaming Republicans. This whole incompetent Dem in office is throwing a wrench into the whole works.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! Bush would have had a fit (or maybe he did, in his private life) to see all that valuable oil leak into the Gulf. It's like setting fire to bags of money!

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Bigjeff5]

That middle picture is creepy.

Would that be Georack Obamush?

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[MagusSlurpy]

Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!

Damn straight - we'd have a woman to clean it up for us!

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole incompetent Dem in office is throwing a wrench into the whole works.

Incompetent? Really?!? After the bozo we had in office the previous eight years? Sir, you have lived up to your username.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[The_mad_linguist]

What? GEORGEWB is evolving!

Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dah Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dah Deh Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun Dee Doo Doo, Dweedle-y Dweedley Dee!

GEORGEWB evolved into OBAMANDER!

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[Tom]

Oh, look, someone has time-travelled in from the early 90s and is proud about this newfangled thing he calls "morphing". What a really new and creative idea.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[zakeria]

lol that is brilliant

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[dkf]

If she'd won the primary, McCain would have won

Pure supposition. You don't know that. Maybe it would have happened, but there's insufficient evidence to make the call either way.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[AliasMarlowe]

That middle picture is creepy.

It sure is. Just as creepy as those at both ends. And those in between.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[khallow]

This whole incompetent Dem in office is throwing a wrench into the whole works.

Incompetent? Really?!? After the bozo we had in office the previous eight years? Sir, you have lived up to your username.

It's amazing, but Obama (and the clowns in Congress) has been working hard to rehabilitate G. W. Bush's reputation. I blame Bush, of course.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!!

[toddestan]

Supposedly, one of the reasons McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate was to try and attract the disgruntled Hilary supporters over to his ticket. Now, if Hilary was nominated instead, perhaps McCain would have picked someone more sane as his running mate?

Politicians Lie

[Archangel Michael]

Film at 11:00pm

Obama lied, fish died.

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. The shutoff valve is in another castle.

Re:Politicians Lie

[pixelpusher220]

very cute. Is that from the "If it rhymes it must be true dept"?

This is a serious breach of trust regarding the policy used to CLEAN UP THE GOPs MESS>

Still bad, I still am just as pissed off about this as I would be with GWB if he'd done it (which I'm pretty sure he did fudge facts on a legion of issues).

But Obama in no way caused the oil disaster. Well one *possible* avenue of responsibility stems from the Sec of Interior he chose, but that's so far down the list of directly attributable causes of the disaster it ain't even funny.

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody died when Clinton lied.

Re:Politicians Lie

[Archangel Michael]

People at the Aspirin Factory would beg to differ.

What? you actually believe it wasn't about getting the fat school girl's blue dress off the front page?

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the people in that aspirin factory we bombed.

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you mean in the series of attacks where we were trying to get what was then believed to be a chemical weapons site (in the Sudan) and some obscure guy named "bin Laden" in Afghanistan? (We barely missed the latter, incidentally.)

Yeah, totally a distraction.

(Of course, had he not bombed the sites, you'd be saying he was soft on terrorism. You can win that either way, can't you? Sad thing is, "win" here means what's best for your party and not necessarily the nation, doesn't it?)

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

it was about trying to kill osama bin laden.

you know, the guy that republicans didn't know existed until 9/11 ("Okay, now you've covered your ass") and forgot existed a year later ("We need to make sure the smoking gun doesn't come in the form of a mushroom cloud").

now fuck off and go back to reading decision points.

Re:Politicians Lie

[sumdumass]

You can't completely claim it was about trying to kill Bin Laden. The problem here is that Clinton- well people within his administration, let Bin Laden go on a previous encounter where his death would have been certain.

In fact, Clinton's method of operation of the time was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue which is why it was so out of character that this act in the Sudan gets marked as a cover-up. If he had been actively attempting to kill Bin Laden, no one would have taking the timing and the events to mean anything other then what it was. But alas, that wasn't the case, the time suggested that the sudden temporary change in direction was actually motivated by other circumstance surrounding the president.

Re:Politicians Lie

[FragHARD]

except for the oil eating fish they just got fatter....wait a minute---this just in' Michelle 0bama plans health subcommittee for obese fish!!!

Re:Politicians Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Turk 182 - see the movie

Re:Politicians Lie

[pixelpusher220]

Doh! Loved that movie and totally missed the reference!

Most transparent administration ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even their lies are obvious!

Re: Most transparent administration ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, a democrat gamed us! How surprising.

Roosevelt had social security. Lots of cash stashed away earning interest for our retirements. How's that promise working out for you?

The Blessed Kennedys, Oh where do you start, with dad the traitor, Bobby the all above board (snort) attorney general, Ted (let's not even go there) or the 1960 election stealer?

I'm sorry I'm really off track here. The Repubs, who I don't like either BTW, are really the bad guys. Yup. Absatootly. They stole it from Mr Green Jeans Al Gore. Who uses more energy per unit time than 20 or 30 of anyone reading this. If you ignore his jet travel.

The Dems have _never_ stuffed a ballot box. Oh, shoot. I forgot about Illinois' history, and most of the northeast US. Well, we'll ignore that insignificant state as well as the goofballs on the coast.

Where's Obama from again?

Unintentional?

[Infonaut]

Yes, because the White House assigns stuff like this to their interns, and doesn't employ squadrons of people who are masters at wordsmithing.

Re:Unintentional?

[nospam007]

Hanlon's Razor:
        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Unintentional?

[commodore64_love]

This was actually reported ~4 months ago, when the oil spill was still happening, and one of the White House staff admitted they didn't like the recommendations so they "massaged" it to provide the answer they wanted. They then apologized for it. Kinda similar to how Cigarette companies produce studies showing smoking is good for you.

Re:Unintentional?

[Foobar of Borg]

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Foobar's Razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by someone being a grade-a arrogant prick.

Is this a surprise?

[Aquitaine]

Was there really any doubt that the ban was a purely political decision in the first place?

Re:Is this a surprise?

[hedwards]

Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s

We'd still be in the same spot, because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does. For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[harvey the nerd]

BP is the problem. It is no surprise that it was BP instead of Shell or Exxon. BP did it, AGAIN.

Alternative energy will go forward from high cost applications at the margins, driven by higher oil and gas prices. Not some magic Federal program.

Last time, in the 1970-80s energy crunch, we had that Carl Sagan moment, "billions and billions", for nothing but expensive, abandoned coal liquification plants of the federal Synfuels corp.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[h4rr4r]

I foolishly doubted it.

Personally, until they can demonstrate the ability to control this kind of well in a timely manner why should they be allowed to drill?

To me it seems like legalizing drunk driving.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[master0ne]

>>>Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.

That implies we could have developed better more efficient means than we currently have, possibly solar that uses more of the spectrum, or more portable options that could replace gas/diesel fuels. Your assumption that we would still be at the current level of R&D is flawed.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[h4rr4r]

So pave over Nevada and Arizona. Then use the spare power to crack water to get Hydrogen and make our own hydrocarbons.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[master0ne]

If this was a Exxon incident you could have just as easily said Exxon did it AGAIN, same goes for shell, or any other BIG ENERGY company, their all horribly irresponsible, and more worried about their bottom line's and how well they do on the stock markets and how big of a bonus their CEO gets than they are about the enviroment, peoples lives, or well... anything. Bottom line is, big energy is king, and the king is only concerned with how much money he can make, not with the state of his kingdom.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[countertrolling]

For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada...

I wouldn't mind seeing the math on that

Re:Is this a surprise?

[moortak]

Yes, because Exxon has no history of giant offshore oil related screwups.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

after the latest election results from these states, well Nevada at least, that's not a bad plan after all...

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Bigjeff5]

I've got one word for you:

Nuclear.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[wierd_w]

Or, we could have, you know-- tapped hydroelectric power in Colorado (LOTS of mountain streams before it reaches the major river systems), and wind energy here in Kansas-- (the average windspeed year-round is 12mph, with windy days constituting more than 2/3. This is more than enough to harvest sizable quantities of "green" energy.)

The major falacy with "Alternative energy wont work! (cites energy density VS hydrocarbons)" is that it makes at least 3 assumptions, almost all of the time:

1) Only one kind of alternative energy is cited. A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.

2) Wind energy is discounted due to variability. Arguments against tactlessly ignore pumped hydro as a solution to the variability and availability problems.

3) "Wont power our cars!" Which, of course it wont, if your car is designed to run on hydrocarbons. Of course, nobody wants to trade in their "Perfectly working" hydrocarbon burning rattle trap, despite that the much vaunted "Energy Density" issue being pretty much garbage here, because nearly all of the energy liberated by the combustion leaves the tailpipe as wasted heat. Total system efficiency with a rechargable battery array + powerplant + transmission lines is rapidly approaching the absymal total efficiency of the internal combustion heat engine, but with considerably less pollution. (arguably, this depends on the battery chemistry used, and how it is recycled.. but that kind of pollution is more easily contained than is flippant CO2 emission.) The major reasons people dont want an electric vehicle are: 1) A lie by the automotive industry that electric vehicles are gutless. [tell that to a diesel electric train. The pulling power comes fromt he electric motor, not the diesel generator.] 2) inferior drive distances (battery technology is rapidly resolving this.) 3) Price. (artificially controlled for the most part.)

4) "All that alternative energy would require a new power distribution system! That costs money!" Cry me a river. We need a new power distribution system anyway, unless you look forward to "California brownouts part II" nation wide, along with 'National emergency' type power grid failures when we have another category 4 or higher solar storm, like we did in the 20s. Feel free to ignore that problem though-- just dont come crying when your power goes out. Did you know that most of the power generated and pushed into the existing grid gets bled out as wast heat and or radio emissions? Why do you suppose that is? What do you suppose the result of replacing that leaky "hose" would be on power prices? (Long term here. Yes, I know the utility companies would charge to replace the lines in the short term.)

Long story short, The "Problem" with alternative energy is that it would upset the apple-cart for the current energy stakeholders. It is a purely political problem.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd still be in the same spot, because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does

Brazil has been successfully successfully supplanting oil with ethanol since the oil crisis in the 70's.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey boner i think (hope) he was talking about nuclear.
if you think nuclear doesn't produce as much energy as combustion, you need to talk to my man Einstein.
-b

Re:Is this a surprise?

[sumdumass]

The R&D hasn't stopped. In fact, it's pretty much just as flat as it always has been with a few minor exception. If the government stayed on the alternative kick from the 1970's, we wouldn't be much different then we are now.

The problem isn't really an R&D problem but a pure science problem as we are close to the limits of anything that is affordable with the existing fundamentals. Solar power has been around since the late 1800's, wind power since the early 1900's, and water power has been around in some form or another for several centuries. These aren't technologies that were introduced in the 60's, dropped out of existent in the 80's only to re-emerge in the 2000's.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.

Nonsense. If we switched to solar PV, we'd need roughly 70,000 km^2 of panels. That's based on US energy consumption, taking in to account clouds, day/night, all the stuff solar deniers like to pretend is an issue. Now, 70,000 km^2 sounds like a lot, but it really is about 270 km on a side. Convert that to miles, get 165 miles on a side. Big, but not as big as Nevada. Expensive as hell, sure. But not too big.

Now of course, we could build those cells on our roofs, and cut that by a major number.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Tom]

Which is why places like Schleswig-Holstein, at 5% of the size of Nevada, have active plans to satisfy the entire electric energy demand of their entire population through wind power by 2020. Yes, that doesn't yet power cars, but that's just wind power as well.

Alternative energy isn't just one form, it's a combination of them all. And fuck the "it doesn't satisfy 120% of our demand" attitude. Do you always wait until you have a perfect and complete solution before you start implementing it?

If we had pushed stronger for alternative energy in the 70s, our use of oil and coal today would be considerably less than it is, which means we would require less, which means prices would be lower, less dangerous fields would be exploited and we'd have shifted peak oil out a decade or two. Heck, we may have even fought a war or two less over it. Yes, we likely wouldn't be living in Hippie paradise. But we would be having more alternatives, more options, and likely a better world.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Your post is great, but I have a few issues with it:

1) A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.

Solar's energy conversion efficiency is low, but this really isn't relevant. Most solar panels are about 20% efficient. When you ask about the efficiency of a system, you have to ask what the total course of the system is, from sunlight to wheels/house power/chemical production. What this basically means is the total land area needed to sustain a person. If that land area is too big, that's no good. If a system has 1% efficiency but ends up not requiring any space, that's not a big deal. The real favorite of the renewable energy deniers is the ethanol and hydrogen. They prove that hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol won't work and then claim we're dead. This is like saying that a car clearly is unaffordable, because you can't afford a collectors edition Corvette, while ignoring the fact that you can afford Honda Civic.

3) "Wont power our cars!" Which, of course it wont, if your car is designed to run on hydrocarbons.

Actually it will. Worse case scenario, we have the technology to use electricity, CO2, and water to make hydrocarbons and oxygen. Yes, it's horribly inefficient, but in a world where EV's fail and RE is cheap, it would make sense. It might also be a sensible way to make plastics and other oil based stuff.

2) inferior drive distances (battery technology is rapidly resolving this.)

This is actually a big problem, but battery technology can't fix it. The problem is that outlets just can't pump out enough power for the system to be recharged in a reasonable amount of time. The real solution is to build something like the Chevy Volt, that can consume synthetic petroleum and biofuels. Doing this lets you use cheaper but heavier battery technologies, like Edison NiFe batteries.

Did you know that most of the power generated and pushed into the existing grid gets bled out as wast heat and or radio emissions?

This actually isn't true. The electrical grid, as wires, is about 95% efficient. However, the power plants aren't very efficient, ranging from 30% to 60%. This is because of the Carnot limits that impact the conversion of heat to work in a heat engine.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[dkf]

This actually isn't true. The electrical grid, as wires, is about 95% efficient. However, the power plants aren't very efficient, ranging from 30% to 60%. This is because of the Carnot limits that impact the conversion of heat to work in a heat engine.

Modern thermal power stations are large and run very hot and have many stages to recover energy from the heat precisely to deal with these things (running hotter increases the theoretical max, being larger and having more turbines in series increases the actual amount of energy extracted). In this, they are much more efficient than a small power plant such as a combustion engine. Once you've converted into electrical energy, you can't use Carnot-style calculations to do the calculation (you've not a thermal distribution so you're not satisfying the starting assumptions); energy losses are due to resistance and impedance in the cables.

The only thing that it's not a good idea to do with electrical power is heating; at that point, it's better to move the fuel itself to where it is needed.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Wolvenhaven]

I'm adding 5 words: Nuclear power surplus producing hydrogen.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Dragon Bait]

2) Wind energy is discounted due to variability. Arguments against tactlessly ignore pumped hydro as a solution to the variability and availability problems.

One of the big obstacles to wind energy adoption is -- environmentalists. The environmental impact report for building transmission lines is running about $1,000,000 per mile. That's just for the report -- no power lines, no towers, just the report.

Unless you have the wind generation near existing distribution systems, environmental impact statements alone almost make it a non-starter.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now of course, we could build those cells on our roofs, and cut that by a major number.

 
Not in the northern (read:populated) half of the US. You realize my roof spends a good 1/3 of the year covered in snow, right?

Re:Is this a surprise?

[alexo]

[...] because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does. For example if we switched to Solar energy [...]

<cough>nuclear</cough>

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yeah, well it does not work everywhere. That's why we have these great things called copper cables to ship electricity where it is needed. I do not think all solar can practically fit on roofs. I think residential + commercial + a bit of Arizona can do it. Worse case scenario, a lot of Arizona would be used up, but that's not really a big deal.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

BP screwed up major big times in the 2000-2005, 2006-2010 time periods. Exxon's big faux paus was in 1989, with more US assets at stake, at risk, to screw up. If anything, the BP trend of f-ing u- appears to be gaining momentum, "bigger and badder". What next? Will anybody fix or stop BP before they kill or pollute again?

Where's Kanye?

[cobrausn]

Isn't it obvious? Obama hates Gulf people. I doubt any kind of ban like this would have been considered if Chicago business interests had been at stake.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[hedwards]

Except that Kanye was actually onto something for once. The Bush administration didn't take hurricane Katrina seriously, and previous administrations hadn't taken the levee situation seriously. But ultimately, Bush failed to provide the sort of leadership during that which was necessary.

As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?

Re:Where's Kanye?

[commodore64_love]

Shouldn't the blame be placed on the Governor?

After all he's the one who, when Bush called to send troops to help, refused to allow them entrance: "It's okay. Louisiana can handle this alone." A president is powerful, but per the constitution still not allowed to overrule a Governor during peacetime. I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Chibi Merrow]

Except there was nothing a sitting president could do about utter incompetence and corruption of local officials during a natural disaster, as virtually all disaster response resources are not controlled by the federal government and Federal powers are extremely limited in that regard. But I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with President Bush suspending posse comitatus and unseating state and local government officials, right?

Re:Where's Kanye?

[countertrolling]

But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?

When they commit a crime, why not? At the very least you make sure the bastards pay every penny for all damages... The accident was totally avoidable with simple due diligence.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the blame be placed on the Governor?

After all he's the one who, when Bush called to send troops to help, refused to allow them entrance: "It's okay. Louisiana can handle this alone." A president is powerful, but per the constitution still not allowed to overrule a Governor during peacetime. I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.

Nope, the President has the power to send troops (obviously on with consent of Congress, who have passed various limitations such as Posse Comitatus and others, but I digress) whenever he pleases. In fact, the normal method is for the President to Federalize the National Guard (despite it's usually being commanded by the State governor) instead of actually sending the US Army. The NG is likely to be closer and already organized for disaster relief and riot suppression anyway. The Constitution expressly provides the power to do this (Art 1, Section 8) and it's codified in law as well.

LBJ did this in Alabama (see, e.g. here) when Gov Wallace refused to allow MLK to march and insinuated that the Guard would resist desegregation.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[dbIII]

Don't you have something called FEMA and doesn't it have the power to override all State organisations due to it being part of Homeland Security? If you'd had a President back then instead of a Playboy Prince on holiday then things would have been done and ruffled feathers sorted out later.
People are supposed to sit on their arse and point blame after the fact and not while people are dying in a disaster. I really do not think there is another President in US history that would have handled it as badly - it's not about Republican or Democrat here it's simply about abject failure. The situation of information control being far more important than lives was especially sickening.
Just don't repeat the stupidity of replacing a President that was a failed oil executive that relied on government corruption to create a bubble and inflate the worth of his company with a failure as a mother and governor. The Republicans don't have to choose worthless losers.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Tom]

I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.

Uh, no it isn't.

The EU president doesn't even have any troops to send. In fact, there is no such thing as "the EU president". Wikipedia:

President of the European Union (or President of Europe) could be an incorrect reference to any of:

        * President of the European Council (since 1 December 2009, Herman Van Rompuy)
        * President of the European Commission (since 22 November 2004, José Manuel Barroso)
        * Presidency of the Council of the European Union (since 1 July 2010, Belgium)

Neither of them holds any executive powers. Especially the first two are administrative positions, basically the head organizers of their respective organisations.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Notquitecajun]

"She." Kathleen Blanco was governor at the time. And was woefully inept during Katrina.

Other than Ray Nagin, there was actually a LOT of competence on the local level in small towns and such - it's just that the big mistakes were made by the big leaders. Louisiana suffered GREATLY there because of widespread ineptitude. Compare to Mississippi, where Haley Barbour did a VERY good job.

Of course, there were a lot of cultural differences where the generationally poor in New Orleans learned a hard lesson about what government won't do for them.

Compare to Gustav, when Bobby Jindal - and the people of Louisiana (and Baton Rouge in particular) - handled the situation on their own VERY well with FEMA being VERY late to the game.

Oh, and down there? It was area churches that came through more than anyone else. But you won't see that on the news.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Chibi Merrow]

Don't you have something called FEMA and doesn't it have the power to override all State organisations due to it being part of Homeland Security?

No, we don't. FEMA is an organization that provides logistical and organizational support to local disaster response agencies. FEMA has none of its own manpower.

Now President Clinton did sign an executive order that gave FEMA extraordinary powers in the event the President declares a national emergency and SUSPENDS THE CONSTITUTION, but that's not considered a very popular option.

If you'd had a President back then instead of a Playboy Prince on holiday then things would have been done and ruffled feathers sorted out later.

No, they wouldn't have. If the President had tried to depose the duly elected Governor and Mayor responsible for this monumental cockup, who happened to be from the opposing party, you could have stacked the legal filings halfway to the moon.

People are supposed to sit on their arse and point blame after the fact and not while people are dying in a disaster.

Were you there? I was. What you're describing is what Blanco and Nagin did.

I really do not think there is another President in US history that would have handled it as badly - it's not about Republican or Democrat here it's simply about abject failure.

Actually, yes there was. FEMA's response to Katrina was actually BETTER and over a week FASTER than its response to Homestead, Florida following Hurricane Andrew.

The situation of information control being far more important than lives was especially sickening.

And yet you're buying into the "information control". Again, were you there? Do you know what actually happened? I was working in the government in Louisiana at the time. I got to hear firsthand from victims and from people who tried to help exactly how badly the local and state government dropped the ball and even in many cases actively SABOTAGED rescue efforts, literally turning away volunteers and boats saying "We don't need you." and "Everything is under control!" while people died just blocks away. Never mind that local officials threw the evacuation plan for New Orleans in the trash and evacuated themselves and their families while leaving their constituents to drown. Never mind that the local police either abandoned their posts or just started looting and seizing weapons after the storm instead of helping people. Never mind that the local government evacuated the pump operators who were supposed to keep the flood waters down. Never mind that for DECADES the dozen or so "levee boards" had stolen the levee maintenance funds for pet projects like off-ramps for casinos. Never mind that our governor didn't bother to call up the National Guard. Nevermind that when, after the disaster, a flabbergasted President practically begged for permission to deploy the US Military to assist, our Governor's response was "Give me twenty-four hours to think about it..." No, obviously none of that matters. Obviously the only person responsible for the epic failure that was the Hurricane Katrina response is the guy who wasn't willing to violate the Constitution.

At the end of the day, EVERYONE fucked up. But you've got the chain of responsibility backwards here. Local and state officials are infinitely more responsible for what happened during and after Katrina than anyone at the Federal level. Period.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Commodore, do you actually have a Digg-style merry band of neocons upvoting your idiotic posts? I can't fathom any other explanation.

Re:Where's Kanye?

[Chibi Merrow]

Other than Ray Nagin, there was actually a LOT of competence on the local level in small towns and such

And then there was Aaron Broussard...

Re:Where's Kanye?

[dbIII]

No, they wouldn't have. If the President had tried to depose the duly elected Governor and Mayor responsible for this monumental cockup, who happened to be from the opposing party, you could have stacked the legal filings halfway to the moon.

Instead we had a pile of dead bodies. In other places where they care less about appearance then a state of emergency is actually declared when there is an emergency. That puts the legal hassles off until later. Things like FEMA exist entirely to sidestep this paper pushing bullshit until after the bodies are buried and are there so that there is a clear chain of command and clear divisions of responsibility. The problem was there was a gap where nobody wanted to do a job because that might mean taking the blame - very weak behaviour.

My problem with "information control" being a priority is exactly things like your examples - people turned away and told "everything's fine" because some idiots thought it was better to have the illusion of control than actually letting people in to help. One truly disgusting example was a large group of firemen that came in from interstate that had to sit and do a one day training course on what to say to the media before they were allowed in. Puerto Rico handled a disaster a hell of a lot better than that and nobody was too proud or too scared for their job to admit they needed extra help.

Nevermind that when, after the disaster, a flabbergasted President practically begged for permission to deploy the US Military to assist, our Governor's response was "Give me twenty-four hours to think about it

That's not a President, that's a playboy prince that has suddenly found out that he's expected to work and is in the wrong place and cannot do the job. The Governor is also an idiot but that is no excuse for them both.

One more level of abstraction ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report ...

So now we're getting a report about a report. That's just grand. I personally am waiting for the report about the report about the report. Add a few more levels of abstraction, and we will all forget what the original issue was anyway.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like turtles!

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[blair1q]

You just issued it.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[mosb1000]

You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Report Report? Quick someone form a Committee to investigate the Report Reporting. Of course this committee will need oversight in the form of another bi-partisan committee. Thus we have the Report Report Committee Committee.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[SleazyRidr]

Even better, the summary is of the news report.

So now I'm commenting on your comment of the comment to the summary of the reports about the report about the report!

Where did all the oil go anyway?

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We only forget when a Democrat does it. When a Republican does it, it's top of the fold material for a solid week.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[ShadowFalls]

Someone wants extra credit...

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[Memroid]

and if we continue abstracting the cause to the politicians and/or government in general, then nobody will be held accountable, resulting in the continuation of the status quo.

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo dawg...

Re:One more level of abstraction ...

[RyansPrivates]

This is exactly how I lose every argument with my wife... "Now you're criticizing me for how I criticize? Honey, I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore." But she certainly does!

Surprised by /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community. I've seen many articles in the "Recent" page casting the current Democratic regime in a negative light not survive long, even thought they were definitely relevant to the site. Oh well, despite the best editing efforts to keep these types of things off the front page I guess some make it through.

Re:Surprised by /.

[AnonymousClown]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Surprised by /.

[commodore64_love]

Communists? Corporatists? Some variant thereof? Yeah I know what the word "liberals" means. Totalitarianism and the illusion of individual freedom, where none actually exits.

Re:Surprised by /.

[h4rr4r]

Communists and Corporatists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. You need to start taking your meds.

Re:Surprised by /.

[couchslug]

"Communists and Corporatists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum."

China demonstrated they are less far apart than it would appear, and one may wake up as the other if expedient.

Re:Surprised by /.

[Notquitecajun]

If you look at politics as a circle instead of a line, there are times where they can be eerily similar. Concentration of power and resources in too few hands.

Important Notice:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your 'useful idiot' status has just been upgraded.

Facts? We don't need no stinking facts..

[BenJCarter]

Not when it comes to the eco industrial complex.

Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep your current plan
You will pay less
Quality will improve

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you CAN keep your current plan, unless you want to change it, then you have to start over and get an Obamacare Approved (TM) plan.

You'll pay more no matter what. It's called inflation, and health insurance costs have been rising over inflation for a decade now. I don't remember anyone claiming Obamacare would cost less when you force insurance companies to stop dropping sick people.

Shit sucks, then you die.

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[Anonymous Coward]

round here, we call it a scam.

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[Anonymous Coward]

round here, we call it a scam.

A scam to do what, exactly?

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[BlackSnake112]

Not to feed an AC but...

Obama said that this health care overhaul would cost less. Grand parent AC is correct. Obama did say that during one of his speeches in front of congress. The problem is that many people saw through his 'cost savings' and realized that the government subsidizing health care is not a cost savings. Also many health care plans are charging the company more instead of the regular working person. The costs are just being paid for by someone else.

Health care cost have been going up since the baby boomers are retiring and using the health care system more. Since they are retired, they are fewer people paying into the system. Yes retirees pay, but working people usually pay more.

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies

[Bigjeff5]

The costs are just being paid for by someone else.

Ultimately they are being paid by the people who have always paid them: the people at the bottom who have no say in the matter.

I have to admit, I was thoroughly impressed by Obama's speech at the beginning of the health care BS. I figured if he could keep half of those promises he made we'd be in pretty good shape.

Unfortunately, he broke pretty much all the promises I remember him making during the speech. During the whole procession he cared less about what was in the bill and more about just getting something passed. The speaker of the house publicly basically proved that he was nothing more than the Democratic Party's mouthpiece.

In any case, some of the premises were ludicrous, and when they forced the CBO to base the cost estimates on them, of course it was going to come out to budget-neutral. Bring it back to reality, and we'll never break even on the monstrosity that is the health care bill.

The oil spill...

[kropcke]

...rendered the transparency opaque.

Why is this on slashdot?

[goombah99]

I'll take my nerd news without polotics thanks.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Feyshtey]

Good plan. Stick you head in the sand and ignore it. I'm sure it'll all just go away...

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Pharmboy]

I tend to agree with the GP on this one. I think the issue is that this story really isn't remotely technology related, and could be found anywhere that was a general news or political news site. It doesn't really belong on a "news for nerds" website. When I want general news, I just go to news.google.com or similar. I come here to get things that aren't always found on mainstream sites, technology related, and perhaps a bit out of the mainstream media's reach. Nothing wrong with political stories on /. in the least, and they are wanted here, assuming they are at least remotely related to technology as well.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Feyshtey]

Could you point to the mission statement for /. stating that it's meant to deal only in technology news? I'd also love to see the information that suggests nerds have no concern for their governments deceptions.
A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo, ... Guess it's a damn good thing someone linked it here or I might not have seen it.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[countertrolling]

it. I'm sure it'll all just go away...

Yes, that is usually what happens. The voters find all this perfectly acceptable. Why can't you?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[FiloEleven]

The difference is that /.'s comment system means that there will actually be some decent discussion of the issue. It's far from perfect, but it's the best I've encountered, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to read and take part in it. If you don't like it, you can always hide the section. I'm not trying to be adversarial; there's just really no other way to suggest that.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Pharmboy]

A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo

USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/11/white-house-edited-oil-drilling-report/1

One of many on CNN http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/10/report-white-house-edit-led-to-errant-claim-on-drilling-moratorium/

Wash Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111007479.html

FOX http://nation.foxnews.com/offshore-oil-drilling/2010/11/10/wh-cheated-sell-its-drilling-ban

ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=12112909

There are literally hundreds of articles on the subject. If you can't find it in the "mainstream press", then you aren't looking.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Feyshtey]

USA Today - didnt look there and didnt mention them.

CNN - one of many... meaning 2. 1 of which was posted after this one on slashdot, and the other in the CNN blogs. Front and center news, that latter one...

Washington Post - didnt look there and didnt mention them.

Fox News - It's not on their syndicated news feeds. Its in the 'Fox Nation' section which is essentially amateur reporters. While it's somewhat moderated, its not exactly a place one would frequent in search of professional reporting. It's the equivelant of the CNN blogs, again not exactly front and center news.

ABC News - It wasnt linked on the front, nor on the front of the Politics secion, and isnt now.

Bottom line here is yes, if you do searches for the articles that pertain to this you do come up with some hits. I wont deny that and didnt before, but I personally dont sit at home trying to make up search phrases to find interesting news stories. You sure didnt get presented with this on casual inspection of any particular news site, nor are you today. But you did here on Slashdot.

My statement that they werent reporting it was not fair. I should have stated that they are not driving this as a top news story, nor in most cases even a relatively interesting news story. It's been relegated to the bloggers and amateurs to bring anywhere remotely close to the surface. It's not on any front pages for mainstream news outlets today and wasnt yesterday. By that right its still a damn good thing that it was on Slashdot or the likelyhood I would have seen anything about it would be pretty small.

Short version, thanks to 'timothy' (the OP) for the link.

Intern

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Somewhere, at some time in the past, some underpaid, over-motivated intern had a brilliant idea to help save the world by fighting the evil oil companies first hand! He or she was more than excited just to get an internship at the white house, under the Obama administration no less! And then, this! He or she was given the opportunity to audit a world-changing report regarding one of the most publicized environmental disasters in history for typos and grammatical correctness. Being an over-achiever and one who is full of gumption, the intern took it upon him or herself to rearrange some paragraphs and really stick it to BP, knowing that they were doing the right thing to protect the world from eco-terrorists! Captain Planet would be proud, yesiree!

A few months later, a report about the report reveals the tampering, the public becomes outraged, Obama has to answer for it all, and the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked, perhaps,even developing a nasty cocaine addiction in the process....

Either that or the politico douchebags in the white-house just fucked everyone over again out of sheer boredom.

Either way, it's times like this that make me proud I went to school to become an engineer, rather than getting muddled about in that dark world of hurt that is politics!

Re:Intern

[Gofyerself]

Intern involved in conspiracy???? I bet on boredom.

Re:Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere, at some time in the past, some underpaid, over-motivated intern had a brilliant idea to help save the world by fighting the evil oil companies first hand! He or she was more than excited just to get an internship at the white house, under the Obama administration no less! And then, this! He or she was given the opportunity to audit a world-changing report regarding one of the most publicized environmental disasters in history for typos and grammatical correctness. Being an over-achiever and one who is full of gumption, the intern took it upon him or herself to rearrange some paragraphs and really stick it to BP, knowing that they were doing the right thing to protect the world from eco-terrorists! Captain Planet would be proud, yesiree!

A few months later, a report about the report reveals the tampering, the public becomes outraged, Obama has to answer for it all, and the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked, perhaps,even developing a nasty cocaine addiction in the process....

Either that or the politico douchebags in the white-house just fucked everyone over again out of sheer boredom.

Either way, it's times like this that make me proud I went to school to become an engineer, rather than getting muddled about in that dark world of hurt that is politics!

Except that it's becoming quite apparent OBAMA *IS* THE INTERN!

Look at the way his economic and fiscal policies are pissing EVERYBODY off from German to China to Russia to Brasil - that's pretty much then entire political spectrum, folks. Bush II was never as effective in uniting the world governments against any one US policy or action. Even the "unilateral" Iraqi war had something like 10 or 20 other countries actually send troops to fight.

Good lord, the more I think about how damn near every economically significant nation on this planet is pissed off at Obama's fiscal and economic policies, the more I realize that I can think of no US President in history that's been that incompetent. Not even the penultimate boob himself, Jimmy Carter.

Re:Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you were doing so well keeping the singular/plural thing going with the "he or she" instead of the "they"... and then this!

...the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked...

I'm sorry. I just had to do it. I couldn't help myself.

Re:Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen! I have the same feelings when I read about politics. I like to control the mechanical and electrical, not people. I just wish those who do like to control people didn't have the means to do so. Bah. Back to playing with electronics for me.

Re:Intern

[pipelayerification]

After Clinton I think that perhaps some of the 'excitement' at becoming a white house intern might be tempered just a little bit :)

Re:Intern

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Oh I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy, just plain old youthful idealism combined with incompetency and naivete. That's enough of a volatile cocktail to poison any issue really, be it political or otherwise.

Phil Plait will be on to this in a flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, is always railing against government interference with scientists. Now doubt we can expect a full-on blasting from him. Oh that's right, it's only Republicans in government he rants against.
 

Anybody got a diff?

[Revvy]

All this hullabaloo and we don't even have a diff of the two versions. Lots of hot air being blown around, but nobody's seen what the real cause of the problem is. Two words got moved, should be a simple thing to diff.

-----
Who needs proof when they have a hot air balloon?

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[KermodeBear]

Two words got moved

“Both versions, however, revised and re-ordered the executive summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the secretary’s moratorium recommendation – which had not been peer-reviewed – and the recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report – which had been peer-reviewed – to become effectively lost.”

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[Anonymous Coward]

we don't even have a diff

'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?

The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[RingDev]

It's a shame really. It could be so clear. Every comment about the moratorium starts off with "The Secretary recommends..." where as all of the peer reviewed stuff starts off with "The Report recommends..."

The problem though, is the word "This". A paragraph immediately following one of the paragraphs that states "The Secretary recommends ... a 6 month moratorium ... " starts off with the following:

The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts
identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

The "this" in that sentence is suppose to be referencing the report that the peer-review group passed. But since the paragraphs have been re-ordered, it appears to reference the report that we are currently reading. And thus implying that the Secretary's recommendations have been peer reviewed.

-Rick

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[CheshireCatCO]

'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?

I don't think you know what a "fact" is.

A fact would be the two versions, side by side.

And inference or a conclusion would be why it was done and what effect it had. Not the same as a fact.

I can't think of a single reasonable reason why you wouldn't want to see the two versions published. You might be right that this was shady business, but if you are, the actual evidence would support your case so let's get it out there.

The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.

You've offered zero evidence of this. Proof by strident claim isn't proof, it's pundit hocus-pocus. Please stick with the facts. (But first, learn what that term means.)

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[hawkingradiation]

Yeah, both articles linked say basically exactly the same thing and the second one does not point to anything new that was said by scientists that the Obama administration is muzzling scientists. Read the second article linked: all it basically says is that an article was misrepresented by moving paragraphs around. Sound familiar? That is because it was the same sort of stuff from the first linked article. I agree with the parent. Anybody got a diff? Also the slashdot story from a couple of days ago is light on details too: The summary says that Obama says that offshoring fears are unwarranted has NO quotes or mention from the President that he actually said this. I guess it is obvious. No quotation at all. Here is TA. Some actual meat to the articles would be warranted with actual analysis of what is going on would be appreciated.

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[khallow]

All this hullabaloo and we don't even have a diff of the two versions. Lots of hot air being blown around, but nobody's seen what the real cause of the problem is. Two words got moved, should be a simple thing to diff.

Who has the original? Can't diff with only one instance of the report. Here's what I see from the IG report:

A review of the emails that Black sent to the White House at 11:38 pm on May 26, 2010, reflects that in the DOI's draft of the Executive Summary the moratorium was discussed on the first page of the Executive Summary, while the peer review language was on the second page of the Executive Summary, immediately following a summary list of the safety recommendations contained in the body of the 30-Day Report, which had been peer reviewed.

At 2:13 am on May 27, 2010, Browner's staff member sent an email back to Black that contained two edited versions of the Executive Summary. Both versions sent by the staff member contained significant edits to DOI's draft Executive Summary but were very similar to each other. Both versions, however, revised and re-ordered the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the Secretary's moratorium recommendation - which had not been peer reviewed - and the recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report - which had been peer reviewed - to become effectively lost. Although the Executive Summary underwent some additional minor editing, it was ultimately published on May 27, 2010, with the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation.

So the diff would have to be between two draft versions, neither which probably have been released to the public. I imagine a FOIA could pry them loose (perhaps along with any affidavits about who wrote what), but you're probably not going to see them otherwise.

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds suspiciously like a poor proof-reading job that didn't catch an unclear antecedent/antecedent moved to after first reference after someone edited the report, probably for unrelated reasons. (eg, moving up the most important ideas to the front.)

I mean, it's possible that it was malicious, but having read many student papers over the years, I see that sort of thing a lot. (And I know I've done it myself, too.)

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[bonch]

You seem to be confused about the nature of the story. There is no other side. The experts on the panel already said they didn't peer-review the ban on offshore drilling, so that is not in dispute. The White House has already admitted to the misleading nature of the report by claiming that the deception was unintentional, so the edits and their deceptive nature are not in dispute either.

Seeing the reports would be nice for the sake of information, but the point of the story is not in dispute--that the White House's edits to the report gave the impression (intentionally or not, based on which political party you lean toward) that the six-month ban had been peer-reviewed by the panel of independent experts when it had not.

Re:Anybody got a diff?

[CheshireCatCO]

-that the White House's edits to the report gave the impression (intentionally or not, based on which political party you lean toward)

See, you say, "intentionally or not," but you use the phrase, "to give the impression." You've already decided what you think and you don't seem to think that there is another side. (That the edit wasn't intended to mislead.) And you seem to be defending the AC I replied to who clearly has also made up his mind (look at his wording) and doesn't view facts as relevant.

That's where seeing the edit comes in. You may have made up your mind to the point where no evidence matters, but I haven't. I don't know what to think: was this edit something I could imagine being accidentally misleading or was it almost certainly deliberate? Without seeing the data, I can't say. All of the talking heads and shouting from ACs (like the one I replied to) in the world won't replace that for me. I don't care if the pundits are people I tend to agree with or revile, their opinion isn't worth the facts.

In the end, facts matter. You and I may look at the facts and disagree about interpretation (reasonable people can certainly do so), but please don't tell me that we don't need to see them.

NOTAM

[spoonist]

KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Re:NOTAM

[treeves]

Might be interesting - I didn't look up where those particular locations are - but this is the wrong thread for it.

"Science"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bending science to fit the narrative.

Figures.

[zelkovamoon]

The white house is full of scum. This kind of thing doesnt really surprise me at all.

policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

Dunno, when the largest oil blowout (it was not a spill!) happens, most people would think it prudent to stop and check all other similar endeavors. Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

Though the real question is why you can drill in the US waters without a cement-clad drill hole and a ready-made emergency sarcophagus already in place before you even start drilling. We have those requirements in Europe and people still make gobs of money with oil.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[amiga3D]

Well considering it was a fucking European oil company why didn't they bring that shit with them?

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

For the same reason why the fucking American companies build that shit over here:

They are doing the absolute bare minimum they can get by with. Obvious? Yes.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Bigjeff5]

The scientists didn't think it prudent, and when asked about it after the fact said they definitely would not have recommended it.

It makes sense, too.

If you just had a oil well explode in a failed capping operation, what kind of idiot would order 60 more just like it, just in case it happens again? That's like accidentally cutting your finger off with a butcher knife, and then seeing if you can miss each of your other 9 fingers, just in case.

I'll tell you what kind of idiot would do that: someone more concerned about their political goals more than they cared about the immediate safety of those involved in drilling or the environment itself.

Hell, I bet they could get all oil rigs shut down if 100 people died and 80 million barrels of oil pumped into the Gulf!

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit, a plane crashed, better ground all planes indefinitely until we figure out the cause.

All things in life have risk. We have a lot of ways to manage and minimize risk, and endeavors with a high penalty for failure often require more protection from risk, but the risk will always be there. Always. This was not the first oil blowout and it will not be the last. Panicking and suspending all work every time something bad happens just serves to give Obama political capital with the far left, near-eco-terrorist extremist wing of his own party for "sticking it to big oil" by making them lose money.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

> The scientists didn't think it prudent, and when asked about it after the fact said they definitely would not have recommended it.

Those didn't, OK. The reports and studies I read urged an immediate moratorium.

> If you just had a oil well explode in a failed capping operation

Failed capping of a well that has no structural integrity due to the fact that it's not cement-clad.
Failed capping of a well that has no sarcophagus you can simple slam shut and figure out a solution without oil gushing out.
Failed capping of a well that has been pushed along at an insane pace.
Failed capping of a well WHICH BLOWOUT PREVENTER WAS DESTROYED BY HUMAN ERROR and _still_ continuing to drill.

Number 4 may be unique to Deep Horizon. The rest is not. And you know what they did with the other wells while they couldn't drill? They built sarcophagi.

You can not possibly argue that this is not a factual & scientific advantage.

> what kind of idiot would order 60 more just like it, just in case it happens again? That's like accidentally cutting your finger off with a butcher knife, and then seeing if you can miss each of your other 9 fingers, just in case.

Huh?

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Feyshtey]

Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

The ends justify the means. It's all better now. Move along.

/end_sarcasm

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

> The ends justify the means. It's all better now. Move along.

I fear you did not actually understand what I said.

Quoth the blurb:
"This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."

Replies the RichiH:
"Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me."

I did not condone their purported action in any way. I merely pointed out that their policy is science-driven and not ideology-driven. /end_explanation

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Leebert]

Oh shit, a plane crashed, better ground all planes indefinitely until we figure out the cause.

You mean, like the grounding of the Airbus A380 until the root cause of the engine failure that caused an emergency landing last week is understood?

Or the grounding of the Boeing 787 until the root cause of the fire that caused an emergency landing earlier this week is understood?

Don't keep up much on the news, do ya? Personally, I don't really think a drilling moratorium was necessary (but I'm no expert), however, using the aviation industry as an example of light reactions to major failures isn't much going to help your point.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Feyshtey]

I understood what you said perfectly. And I quote:

Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

Regardless of what some Climate scientists will tell you, there's no 'value added' in purposefully manipulating data to show what you want the data to show. There's nothing in the Scientific Method that suggests that it's ok to swap the statements of panel around to make it appear as though they are recommending something they are not.

There's nothing shady about making your case based on scientific analysis. There's nothing wrong with taking the information provided by a group and pleading your case using that as evidence. There's something very wrong, however, in making it appear as though the people you used evidence from made the recommendations that you are trying to make for yourself when they did nothing of the sort.

It doesn't really matter at all if you agree with the White House conclusions or not. If the means is lies and deceit then the ends are inherently suspect. If you cant make your case out in the open then maybe you should re-evaluate how valid your position actually is. Unfortunately this line of reasoning is becoming less and less common in acedemia.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Feyshtey]

Sorry, that quote block blew up. Your quote was : "Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me."

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Feyshtey]

Your arguments are completely invalid. We're having a entirely different conversation. This doesnt have a damn thing to do with whether it is or would have been a good idea to put a halt to all gulf drilling. It has to do with lying and missrepresenting the findings of a panel because you wish their findings had been different.

Unless you're suggesting that the people said the cause of the Airbus problems were 'X', and a report was filed by the government recommending that Airbus fix 'Y' instead, then you're obviously not able to keep up with a simple conversation.

"Well, the panel found that a faulty relay in the airconditioning controls had a catastrophic event and was the root of the fire. But we're telling you that the panel recommended that Boeing overhaul toilet flush procedures."

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

> Regardless of what some Climate scientists will tell you, there's no 'value added' in purposefully manipulating data to show what you want the data to show.

If you are referring to Climategate:

a) You are mixing different topics
b) It has been debunked again and again

> There's nothing in the Scientific Method that suggests that it's ok to swap the statements of panel around to make it appear as though they are recommending something they are not.

Correct. And I did not claim that was the case.

> There's nothing shady about making your case based on scientific analysis. There's nothing wrong with taking the information provided by a group and pleading your case using that as evidence. There's something very wrong, however, in making it appear as though the people you used evidence from made the recommendations that you are trying to make for yourself when they did nothing of the sort.

Unrelated.

> It doesn't really matter at all if you agree with the White House conclusions or not. If the means is lies and deceit then the ends are inherently suspect. If you cant make your case out in the open then maybe you should re-evaluate how valid your position actually is. Unfortunately this line of reasoning is becoming less and less common in acedemia.

Guilt by association much? "inherently suspect" is a tad strong, imo. Especially since the chain of thought "something went horribly wrong, let's stop similar things until we know why" is not exactly all that new.
Of course, they will come up with all the wrong conclusions after the moratorium, this time directly going against the proven-to-be-working mechanisms that are enforced in the North Sea with some made-up mumbo-jumbo which boils down to maximizing profits. _Then_ you can rant with the above.

Or to put it another way: Do you disagree that the moratorium itself, no matter what was used to justify it, is scientifically sound?

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[bonch]

Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

The misrepresentation is the ideology part. The ends don't justify the means.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Feyshtey]

Oh, right. The debate is over...

The rest of your post can be adequately replied to by simply responding to your last statement: "Or to put it another way: Do you disagree that the moratorium itself, no matter what was used to justify it, is scientifically sound."

The key phrase there is "no matter what was used to justify it". I don't actually give a shit, in the context of this discussion, if the underlying science is sound or not. That's not the fucking point. The point is that the White House thought it was perfectly accetable to misrepresent the findings of a panel in order to falsely support their own recomendations. You shouldnt give a shit if their recommendation was great. You should be pissed off that your government thinks this kind of behavior is accetable. But instead you're either perfectly willing to overlook the deciet because you agree with the policy (which by the way, makes you just as dishonest as them), or you actually believe that it's ok to lie, cheat and decieve as long as you win (which should make the a lightening rod for ridicule).

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

And I never said they did. Read the other threads.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[RichiH]

> Oh, right. The debate is over...

Pretty much, but I still feel the need to point out that you are misinterpreting what I said; on purpose or not.

Again: I did _not_ condone or defend the misrepresentation that happened.

All I am saying, repeatedly, is that the conclusion they came to is scientifically sound.

You are so focused on your point that you ignore everything I say, trying to force me into debate about truth. If you had stated so earlier, we could have stopped earlier.

Government lives and thrives on lies. It pains me to say this, but the pain dulls at some point. I'd rather be outraged and try to effect change when the outcome is negative. There is not enough outrage and/or time to really care about it all.

And it's not my government. If it was, I would have emigrated years ago. From visiting both the USA and Canada, I'd say Vancouver is a good place.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology

[Leebert]

*I* can't follow a conversation? I responded directly to the point that the parent poster made about the aviation industry, and I even *disclaimed* my own ability to truly characterize the risk.

Can't YOU follow a conversation? I see it went like this:

My paraphrase of what RichiH said: I don't get why they didn't stop and check other drilling to make sure they aren't experiencing the same issues. And why don't they have requirements in place that would have mitigated the risk?

My paraphrase of what AC replied: Stop and check other drilling? What, do we stop and figure out what went wrong with an airplane when airplanes crash?

My paraphrase of what I said: Yes, as a matter of fact, we do. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, sir AC, but that's not supporting your argument.

You came in and started talking about misrepresentation of the findings of a panel, which I agree is the actual issue that TFA is about, but decidedly *NOT* what we were discussing in this *thread*.

Now go away.

You're "superior" 2 AC's Mr. "Registered 'luser'"?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line, & get over yourself: You're the most easily tracked fool of all around this website, with your being a "registered 'luser'" here on /., that's simply because your posting history makes you easily trackable for trolling.

(Additionally - Just because you live for "karma points", that makes you 'superior' to AC's? Again, grow up, & get over yourself... and realize the truth of what was stated in my 1st paragraph above).

Edited

[rossdee]

The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs

Re:Edited

[cosm]

The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs

That is classified.

Signed,
Your perpetually non-transparent government.

Re:Edited

[CannonballHead]

You're joking (I think ;) ) ... but actually, I'd be interested to know what the WH uses for reports like this. And those giant 2k page bills they draft. MS Word? :P

Re:Edited

[treeves]

I'm guessing it's not LaTEX. I'd like to be wrong.

Opposition by majority of americans != right

[tizan]

I am sure majority of American voters (of the time) would have opposed civil rights law or abolishing slavery or vote/equality for women.
That is why referendum on every major decision is a bad idea.
You vote for what you think is the best leaders and let them make decision popular or unpopular and kick them out if you want
later...i think that is better than making decision by popular acceptance which would mean daily electioneering already its terrible every 2 years.

Run for power if you think you'd do a better job than is being done. But the question is: ow come every libertarian or small govt person that gets into power morphs into yet another protect wall street person ? Is Wall St the center of liberterianism ?

Re:Opposition by majority of americans != right

[operagost]

I don't agree with your first statement on historical grounds, but you have the right idea about republican government. There are those who keep trying to convince young people that what we need is more democracy; that direct democracy will give them a greater voice. Meanwhile, it gives them less power because with mob rule, the mob makes the rules. If you like the idea of "might makes right", then democracy is for you.

Re:Opposition by majority of americans != right

[Dragon Bait]

I am sure majority of American voters (of the time) would have opposed civil rights law or abolishing slavery or vote/equality for women.

Actually, this is why you want constitutional republics, to protect the rights of the individual. (Yes, of course the original U.S. constitution lacked these safe guards -- given how narrowly it passed, they had to compromise with the [evils of the] status quo).

Is Wall St the center of liberterianism ?

Actually, it looks like Wall Street is where Obama goes shopping for advisers.

I'll give ya half credit

[RingDev]

I'm mostly okay with what you're saying, maybe not to the degree you are taking it, but largely I would agree. Save for one point:

- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom

The "no person shall be turned down" policy of 1997 only effected a very specific subset of banks. Specifically, of the top 20 sub prime mortgage lenders in the build up to the 2008 blow out, 2 we under the regulations applied by that law. And they were (IIRC) 18th and 20th for the total amount of money lent to sub-prime loans.

No, the underlying cause of the housing bubble is a standard free-market behavior couple with greedy people willing to lie. You had a whole lot of upper-middle and upper class individuals with money to invest. They gave their money to investment firms (and banks, which after the repeal of the GS act, could behave like investment firms). These investment companies had too much liquidity, too much money in the pocket, and not enough out in the market earning interest. So they pushed for more loans. Business loans, construction loans, home loans, personal loans, etc...

Well then it becomes a supply and demand issue. There are a finite number of "good bets" on the market at any given time. And with the excess liquidity in the credit market, all those were snatched up first. From there, we had loads of "pretty good bets". And those too got snatched up.

Then we started getting into the "completely crap bets." Ideally, there shouldn't be enough liquidity in the credit market that these loans are ever going through. But between the huge amount of demand for investments, and the completely bogus CDL vehicles misrepresenting the risk, they were selling like hot cakes.

Now, had the GS Act still been in place, all of this would have happened to investment firms, which should have known better, should have protected there investments, and if they neglected the signs, gone bankrupt. The problem though, is that banks were in on the deals. And when a bank loses hard like this they have insurance through AIG and if things get bad enough, FDIC. And that's when everything went to crap.

So yeah, the dismantling of GS opened the tax payers and economy to this risk, but it wasn't the cause. Nor was Clinton's affordable housing initiative.

The underlying cause is the exact same thing that lead up to the great depression: The excessive consolidation of wealth. I'm not a bleeding heart commie, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when we have too much money in too few of hands, the economy suffers significantly.

Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.

-Rick

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[cobrausn]

Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.

-Rick

Define wealthy for me. Then prevent that definition from getting broader and broader as cash-strapped governments seek to acquire more money. Then perhaps we are in agreement.

Until then, those in the middle class will continue to suffer the most at the hands of unfair government tax policy. Taking 35 ~ 50% from a middle / upper-middle class family is a nice brick wall between them and becoming 'wealthy'. The rich, on the other hand, can take any percentage of their millions, chalk them up as a loss, and keep on without batting an eye.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[j1m 5n0w]

Define wealthy for me. Then prevent that definition from getting broader and broader as cash-strapped governments seek to acquire more money.

The definition of "wealthy" that I think is the most useful at present, is: any person who makes sufficient income from capital gains to be relatively unaffected by variations in the income tax. (People specifically excluded from this those who are unaffected by changes in income tax on account of having no job, or such a low income that their tax rate is close to zero.)

If the capital gains tax were made to be comparable to income tax, then we'll perhaps need a more specific definition with a dollar amount attached.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Thing 1]

I was going to Insightful you, but I'm out of points. You're exactly right with "Tax the wealthy." Back in the 50s after WW2, we experienced significant economic growth. The highest tax rate was 90%. The rich paid it gladly, because they realized that it meant better schools and reduced crime, meaning they wouldn't need to spend as much on security, and would have better employees. These days, it seems, we have that backwards.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Anonymous Coward]

So yeah, the dismantling of GS opened the tax payers and economy to this risk, but it wasn't the cause.

Glass-Steagall is not the panacea people want to make it out to be. GS would have been, at best, a speed bump on the way to the crash site. You still had securitized mortgages coming out with "Super Senior AAA" ratings from the doofuses at Fitch / S&P / Moody's where a quick unraveling of the underlying loans would fail to pass the blush test.

Every bank made loans, wrapped them up in CDO, got them insured, and passed them off lightning quick. $400,000 liar loan? No problem! We'll just kick it off to Citi, Fannie, or Freddie.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Anonymous Coward]

the underlying cause of the housing bubble is a standard free-market behavior

That just doesn't make sense. It would make sense if the economy was ultimately controlled by free-market economics. But it's not. Not even close. The economy is controlled in a pyramid fashion, from the top down, with an elite few (i.e. government) holding enough power to destroy it. If the economy was controlled from the bottom up, as a true free-market economy would be, then you'd be able to argue your point. But obviously that's not the case.

So let's call a spade a spade here: if economic power is centralized, consolidated, and controlled by an elite few, then economic failure is ultimately the fault of those who control the economy, not those who merely participate in it. The speculators you blame were merely following the cue of those at the top of the pyramid (i.e. government).

Of course, it wouldn't quite fit into your agenda to blame the top of the pyramid, would it?

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[drinkypoo]

They also knew that they'd be able to dodge most of those taxes. Well, they dodge just as many taxes now, but the percentage is much lower. Now we either need a higher maximum rate again, or a simplified tax code. Either will work, but mucking around with a tax code any longer than my leg (and it's pretty long) is a waste of time and totally unnecessary.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Notquitecajun]

I think that the GS could STILL be out of the way, but there were two issues at hand - one is/was the inherent backing of home loans by Fannie and Freddie, which artificially inflates home prices; the other isn't the lack of regulation, but the lack of transparency and practical fraud on the part of ratings agencies like Moody's. The banks could STILL be investment banks and have followed rules that were probably still in place along those lines, but when you engage in fraud with the rules still in place, the rules don't matter.

On top of which, many had the insurance backed by the government, covering their risk. Take away that, banks get smarter about lending.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[RingDev]

And my arguement against that point of view, is that even with more transparenty, less safety nets, and more/better/enforced regulation, if there is excess liquidity in the credit market, we will wind up in the exact situation again.

No regulation handles all exploits.
No transparency is with out blind spots.
No industry is with out liars.
No investor knows where every dollar is.

Someone will always be there to take advantage of the market forces. If transparency and regulations reduce the occurances and impacts of these offenses, great, but they won't change the underlying driver of them.

-Rick

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[makomk]

The "no person shall be turned down" policy of 1997 only effected a very specific subset of banks.

What's more, I seem to recall that it wasn't a "no person shall be turned down" policy at all. The requirement all the repugnant Republicans and their supporters are so upset about was that some banks could not refuse to give mortgages to people who were otherwise eligable just because they lived in predominently black neighbourhoods.

A small part of the reason we ended up in such an interesting mess was that this wasn't actually a strong enough restriction. It didn't actually stop racial discrimination in lending at all, with the result that a lot of black home-owners ended up in subprime mortgages when they shouldn't have.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Steauengeglase]

The question I can't seem to figure out. What keeps them from pulling a Halliburton and just leaving the US?

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[operagost]

Reagan's 1986 tax reform took away many of the loopholes, allowing the top rates to be dropped. JFK had done much the same on a smaller scale two decades earlier.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[ukyoCE]

1997 was fine, the problem was around 2004-2006 when people were buying (and building) houses as investment speculation, often with no down payment, interest-only loans, and sometimes with no job at all.

Those people are at fault primarily, but the banks are also largely at fault for giving loans to people who couldn't afford them and sometimes misleading people into thinking they COULD afford them.

This whole "Clinton caused the housing crisis because he wanted poor people to buy houses" angle I've only heard as a racist rant, never from any economist.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[operagost]

That's a lie. Please see above for my post of the NYT article, or just google "Fannie Mae eases credit to aid mortgage lending". Any discrimination against minorities could have easily been handled by court enforcement of the Civil Rights acts.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[drinkypoo]

And then Bush what, tripled the size of the tax code he promised to reduce? I mean, he signed his name, anyway. You don't need a longer tax code unless it has more loopholes, you need a shorter one.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[phlinn]

Ahh... another edition of blame Gramm-Leach-Blily. The problem is that it arguably softened the crisis, and the banks which diversified weathered the storm better.

Your argument about the needs of the many is 51 wolves and 49 sheep deciding what's for dinner. After 49 days, you just have starving wolves... There's only so long the cannibal pot solution can go on.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[KhabaLox]

The underlying cause is the exact same thing that lead up to the great depression: The excessive consolidation of wealth. I'm not a bleeding heart commie, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when we have too much money in too few of hands, the economy suffers significantly.

Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.

-Rick

This is fucking brilliant and well said. His mod points should go up to 6.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[RingDev]

I was trying to make it clear that I did not find GS to significant road block to the bubble/burst. Although, I would point out that a the vast majority of banks that do not get into investment firm business didn't "weather the storm" at all. They weren't even affected by it.

None of the banks I do business with deal with CDOs. They don't make excessively risky loans. And they work with their customers to reasonably reduce the chances of foreclosure. And while they didn't turn the types of insane profits that many of these "too big to fail" banks did playing in the sub-prime and secondary markets did, they also didn't have nearly the fall out.

But really, the point of my post was that the underlying problem isn't regulation or transparency. It is the consolidation of wealth and the growing dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots. A strong middle class leads to a strong and stable economy and society. An excess of poverty leads to an unstable economy and society.

Your sheep/wolves analogy is flawed. In this case we are talking about 95 sheep and 5 wolfs, where the 5 wolves control 80% of the grazing lands.

-Rick

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[Dragon Bait]

You had a whole lot of upper-middle and upper class individuals with money to invest.

Sub-prime -- loaning below the prime interest rate (the rate banks charge other banks to borrow money) is never profitable -- even if 100% of the money is going to be returned. Factor in the risk of having the loan defaulted and sub-prime never makes sense.

A truly free market would never make such loans.

Re:I'll give ya half credit

[makomk]

That's a lie. Please see above for my post of the NYT article, or just google "Fannie Mae eases credit to aid mortgage lending".

Ah, that would be the action that didn't put any requirement on mortgage lenders to lend money whatsoever. They just thought they could make more money that way, like all the other banks did - as the article makes clear, it's something the banks involved actually wanted!

What's more, the whole point of this was to reduce the reliance of certain groups on sub-prime mortgages - and those sub-prime mortgages offered outside of Fannie Mae are part of the reason we ended up in such a mess, because unlike the Fannie Mae ones they're based around the assumption that most of the homeowners will never be able to repay them.

Any discrimination against minorities could have easily been handled by court enforcement of the Civil Rights acts.

Which is why they didn't explicitly discriminate against minorities. They just "happened" to have restrictions on what areas they'd provide mortgages for houses in that aligned nicely with racial demographics. Then non-white people just happened to find there were a whole buch of obstacles to buying houses in the white areas where mortgages were available, starting with realtors not wanting to tell them about houses there or show them around and ending with the owners not wanting to sell to them. Nothing that could easily be proved in court.

Wait a minute!

[Lord Kano]

You mean to tell us that President Chocolate Jesus's administration is no more ethical than the previous one?

What about all of that "The previous 8 years." stuff they they kept talking about?

The only news here is that some people are naive enough to believe that dishonesty is owned exclusively by one party.

LK

Re:Wait a minute!

[couchslug]

"You mean to tell us that President Chocolate Jesus's administration is no more ethical than the previous one?"

The LGBT folks found that out early on, and are now enjoying the view from under the bus. Not that selling them out saved anyone in the midterm elections. No one respects legislative cowardice.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Seraphim_72]

President Chocolate Jesus

I am so terribly sorry, you were looking for the racism thread. Despite you low ID number I feel that I must tell you that here on Slashdot we don't really go in for the whole "Negro Bashing" thing. It might have been different when you started, and I really don't think it was, but now a days we don't actually bother with people's color because, well it has nothing to do with anything.

To help you understand my message I will use prejudicial terms so you can understand.

I know Kikes that are poor, Spics that dont pick fruit, Niggers that suck at sports and Faggots that don't like show tunes. See? Prejudice sucks - it doesn't help anyone at all.

Interestingly though - I now know someone that thinks 'Chocolate' is a special word for people who have dark skin. And I guess I also know someone that thinks the President is the Messiah. No one in the Theological world ever thought he was the Second Coming.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Lord Kano]

I am so terribly sorry, you were looking for the racism thread.

No. I wasn't. I'll make that clear later.

Despite you low ID number I feel that I must tell you that here on Slashdot we don't really go in for the whole "Negro Bashing" thing.

Good, because that's not what I was doing. I was guilty-white-liberal bashing.

It might have been different when you started, and I really don't think it was, but now a days we don't actually bother with people's color because, well it has nothing to do with anything.

Obama's color means nothing to me.

To help you understand my message I will use prejudicial terms so you can understand.

I know Kikes that are poor, Spics that dont pick fruit, Niggers that suck at sports and Faggots that don't like show tunes.

And do your friends know that you use these terms to refer to them?

See? Prejudice sucks - it doesn't help anyone at all.

Interestingly though - I now know someone that thinks 'Chocolate' is a special word for people who have dark skin. And I guess I also know someone that thinks the President is the Messiah. No one in the Theological world ever thought he was the Second Coming.

Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans responded to accusations that he didn't want black people to return to the city after Katrina by pledging to keep New Orleans a "chocolate city". IOW, full of black people.

But had you taken the time to look at my profile to get some idea of who I am, you'd know that my reference wasn't racist against Obama. I too an black. I used the term created by Bill Maher, a liberal former Catholic Jew, "President Chocolate Jesus" refers to how white liberals think that they're somehow more enlightened because they supported a black man whom they knew nothing about.

Think of it as my way of shouting "I told you so" in all of their stupid little faces.

LK

If they did this to Gulf Spill

[MrHyd3]

Imagine, if they did this on the Gulf Oil spill report..just think they could manipulate global warming data......nah, they wouldn't do that.....

Stimulus Did It's Job

[Tablizer]

Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything

That is not true. Most analysis says it did pretty much what theory predicted. It added incremental benefits to the economy, but the size of the stimulus was insufficient compared to the size of the recession. If there was a mistake, it was underestimating the size of the recession. But nobody on earth can predict the future very well, nobody.

   

Re:Stimulus Did It's Job

[operagost]

Thanks, Joe Sestak, but you have no proof of that. We could have simply split up the 800 billion dollars among every household in the USA and gotten a bigger result. Instead, we made a bunch of rich left-wingers richer.

Re:Stimulus Did It's Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Joe Sestak, but you have no proof of that. We could have simply split up the 800 billion dollars among every household in the USA and gotten a bigger result. Instead, we made a bunch of rich left-wingers richer.

If rich left-wingers benefited, then so did rich right-wingers. If middle-class right-wingers suffered, then so did middle-class left-wingers. The economy doesn't operate on a partisan basis.

All you morons who think Obama is a tree hugger...

[Radical Moderate]

..have apparently forgotten that he APPROVED more off shore exploration right before the blowout. I'm not sure what happened with this particular report, but the notion that this administration is pushing a green agenda is hilarious.

slashdot ad revenue from BP now?

[Dan667]

seems like the only reason this article would even been on Slashdot. BP is still screwing the Gulf of Mexico and there should not be any more drilling off the coast.

Re:slashdot ad revenue from BP now?

[Feyshtey]

Oh, so it's ok if your government blatantly lies to you and actively decieves you so long as you happen to agree with the goal.

Re:slashdot ad revenue from BP now?

[Dan667]

this is clearly a case of combing through records to find anything to take the focus of BP destroying the Gulf of Mexico. Take your drama else where.

Re:slashdot ad revenue from BP now?

[Feyshtey]

This is clearly a case of stoking (well-deserved) anger at BP in order to deflect attention from painfuly obvious unethical behavior by our government.

I havent seen a single person here defend BP, but there are a ton who seem willing to jump up and defend a betrayal of trust by this administration. Who has the agenda?

I'll say it...

[argStyopa]

"CHANGE"

I'm shocked...no really

[A_Non_Moose]

How long did it take Joe Wilson's 'YOU LIE' to go from decorum breaking to "well, duh".

Nice transparency, and wasn't this covered like...oh, about 6 months ago?

Hope we can change back to a republic before it's too late.

I keep hearing the line from Heavy Metal: "It's not like he'd do anything immoral/illegal".

Yeah, right.

Solar has been working for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

The hyperbolic quote for land use (desert, no less) is ridiculous.
This plant, for example, produces 64MW.
http://google.com/search?q=%22+Nevada.Solar.One%22+%22+200.football.fields%22
...and this stuff *is* doable with 1970s-ish technology.
"Solar One [near Barstow, California] operated successfully from 1982 to 1988"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert#Solar_One_and_Solar_Two

gewg_

How did it get to be such a perversion?

[dbIII]

There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of

Fuck no, they would probably try them as traitors. Consider the royalist overtones of them advocating "small government" of a few with no checks and balances but close to absolute power. Listen to what is actually being said by people that call themselves "libertarians" at "tea parties" instead of what you think they stood for in 1970.
Half the time it's advocating feudalism with the extremely rich as the nobility but wrapped up in a patriotic sounding title.
I don't think Washington, Franklin and others were advocating a system where the rich nobility could do what they pleased, that is what they were fighting against!

Re:How did it get to be such a perversion?

[drinkypoo]

Half the time it's advocating feudalism with the extremely rich as the nobility but wrapped up in a patriotic sounding title.

Anyone talking about privatizing emergency services (and there is a strong contingent which believes in this) is advocating feudalism. "Nice house you've got there..."

Re:How did it get to be such a perversion?

[operagost]

Consider the royalist overtones of them advocating "small government" of a few with no checks and balances but close to absolute power.

Wow. That's pretty much a total lie except for the "small government" part.

Listen to what is actually being said by people that call themselves "libertarians" at "tea parties" instead of what you think they stood for in 1970.

I eagerly await your citation.

It's still the US government no matter who runs it

[dbIII]

I must have missed the day when every single person employed by the US government was fired and replaced by someone else and when the economic damage of having a government asleep at the wheel for nearly a decade vanished over night.
That's right - it never happened!

When are you guys going to wake up that you are not led by a magic nigger that you must all either love or hate on racial grounds and instead by a real human being that is a Chicago lawyer trying to do the best he can. McCain would have done many of the same things if he was in power and unconstrained by ties to donors, but may have faced less opposition if he went around firing horse judges in places where you need somebody that will actually work and other dead wood.

I think Obama will be hated far more than Carter mostly on racial grounds but also because there is no magic way for him to instantly get the USA out of the hole it has fallen into. Whoever follows after him will probably be hated for the same reason.

Re:Clintons fault???

[sempir]

If Clinton had won the presidency race that would have given a whole new meaning to the expression "throwing a wench into the works" (apologies to the original "spanner").

Lovely strawman

[Shivetya]

Just as you claim their example is a strawman so is yours. I am of the opinion that if you can have car payments on a recent model car, a cell phone bill beyond the simple pay as you go, cable, or high speed internet, then you should have paid for health care insurance first or contributed like.

I am all for catastrophic health insurance. Even as a libertarian I can see the benefit. However I see no justice is taking the work of others and giving it to those who selfishly refuse to help themselves. Sorry, but if your shiny new car, smart phone, or 100 channels of televised shit, are more important to you than contributing to your health care insurance then your not important enough to society.

Preference, a yearly expense cap based on your income. As in, if your below the poverty line you pick up the first $250 or $500 (we can figure out what can be fair, but its amazing the number of people below the poverty line you will find with cell phones). Then we work from there and go up. This does not cover any optional (read : luxury health care items) stuff.

What pisses me off most about all this selfish behavior is that the DNC has made it out to be a rich versus poor thing. Well guess who got whacked already by the changes, doctors. My own doctor sold his practice because he cannot afford to go it alone. That meant three independent doctors and five nurses now are part of a conglomerate. From his stories its pretty much happening all over .

Worse, the government is leaning towards reducing what they will pay to serve all these new free loaders. Don't go off on me of that term, the common thread among many of his new patients are attempts to get free meds (amazingly the patients know exactly which ones they need to fix them - as in narcotics) or those looking for comp. Instead of being able to spend the time he used to spend with each patient he is now an assembly line. If the pay from the government gets lower he will probably just leave the trade. See, the dirty little secret is that they are reducing payments for the services on our behalf but not reducing the costs of delivering the services.

Your free health care is going to come on the backs of those delivering it. I don't seem to recall in the Constitution the right to the labor of another. If we continue down this path we won't have good health care at all. That or we will end up with two tiers, till the government regulates it out, where premium care is available to those who pay in cash and the government paid go to wards (say hello to UK style - private insurance gets better service)

Re:Lovely strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

not that the UK has in any way a bad system... I fall down the stairs and break a leg, an ambulance comes and picks me up from the scene, i get patched up and then let off on my way, with no bugger asking me for money or insurance details, or if i have a terminal illness (cancer etc) my family are not stuck with massively increased premiums just to be able to go see a doctor in the future.

on top of this, if i get ill whilst i am away from home, i can go to almost any doctors surgery or hospital in the UK, and receive treatment, without having to find one that supports my particular insurance company ...proper medical care, dont knock it untill you try it

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[drinkypoo]

When are you guys going to wake up that you are not led by a magic nigger that you must all either love or hate on racial grounds and instead by a real human being that is a Chicago lawyer trying to do the best he can.

Here's where I lose all credibility but I'm going to say it anyway; Obama attends the same quasi-secret meetings of government and business leaders that his predecessors attended, and still attend, at the Bilderberg hotel. If you really think he's trying to do the best he can then you're just another Kool-Aid drinker. Obama is not even trying to get us out of a hole. He's just part of the same problem that all Democratic and Republican candidates are part of. It's not that they're incapable of making things better, it's that they're not there for that.

Government works for the real voters — business. The sooner you get that through your head the sooner you can start saying things that make sense.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[operagost]

a Chicago lawyer trying to do the best he can.

to do WHAT?

I think Obama will be hated far more than Carter mostly on racial grounds

Yeah, I hated that incompetent, condescending jackass, mostly because he was a cracker though.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

[operagost]

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 -- In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Re:Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

[Anonymous Coward]

The type of easing described there bears no resemblance to the types of gimmick loans that were being pushed in the real world. They're talking about 30-year fixed mortgages and trial periods leading to a rate decrease. How that translates into all the bizarre crap we saw being sold to put people in situations where their rates would skyrocket, I don't really know. The banks started doing that stuff on their own because they saw massive profits in the practically unregulated (after 2000) securitization of the loans.

Shocking!

[ikeman32]

Now why would the white house not hold up to its promises, that's just absurd? (insert sarcasm here)

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[godefroi]

I think Obama will be hated far more than Carter mostly on racial grounds but also because there is no magic way for him to instantly get the USA out of the hole it has fallen into. Whoever follows after him will probably be hated for the same reason.

People who think Obama is hated because of his race are just as clueless as people who think he doesn't have a birth certificate. You're all morons.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[Feyshtey]

My annoyance with Obama has nothing to do with his heritage, no matter how much you need to stoke that belief in order to silence the growing discontent. My annoyance is also no less with Obama than it is with most of the political machines that have been prominant or in the majorit in the last 2 decades.

People need to get over the fact that just because a person dislikes Obama's policies doesnt for a second mean that they loved Bush's. I think they are both fucking morons.

Higher Prices?

[Dragon Bait]

Right now the people wanting higher prices are the oil companies and the environmentalists.

Of course for the oil companies, if the price goes to high it will eventually lead to diminishing returns as people seek alternatives.

From an environmentalist's stand point, the price cannot ever go to high.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[Johnny5000]

People who think Obama is hated because of his race are just as clueless as people who think he doesn't have a birth certificate. You're all morons.

True of false: there's a non-zero percentage of Americans who hate Obama based on his race.

It might not be a majority of Obama-haters, but I know for a fact that it has been a motivating factor for some.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[godefroi]

Hasty generalization much?

Or, do you have a large enough sample to come to that conclusion? Maybe you have a dog in this fight?

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[Johnny5000]

Hasty generalization much?
Or, do you have a large enough sample to come to that conclusion? Maybe you have a dog in this fight?

Your argument was that no one hates Obama because of his race.
A sample size of one person who hates Obama because of his race is large enough to discredit that theory.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[godefroi]

Your argument was that no one hates Obama because of his race.

No, my argument was that your theory that the reason "people" (not one single person) don't like Obama is because of his race exposes you for an idiot.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[Johnny5000]

No, my argument was that your theory that the reason "people" (not one single person) don't like Obama is because of his race exposes you for an idiot.

So out of a country of approximately 300 million people, there aren't "people" who don't like Obama because of his race.
Not members of the KKK, not members of a Nazi group, no one.

The fact that I (and others) believe that racism exists and might be a motivating factor in how those people feel about Obama somehow puts us on the same level as some conspiracy theorists exposes you for a fucking idiot AND a troll.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[dbIII]

It may not be the reason for everyone that hates him but burying your head in the sand and insulting the guy that says what he can see in front of him solves nothing. Of course it isn't all about racism and isn't all about hating the idea of a Democrat for President, but both and other things add together.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[dbIII]

You probably would have hated Carter as well, but other people will hate Obama because of his race. Actually by the time he's finished a lot of people are bound to think he's worthless because he can't fix the world instantly by magic - unfortunately it's human nature.
Like Carter he's got the unenviable job of trying to get a soft landing out of a crisis and simply by taking action he's already being blamed for the GFC he inherited. Leaders that pretend there is no problem and do nothing about it are liked more than the guys that make the painful cuts.

It's a confidence trick

[dbIII]

People need to remember that the consequences of absolute power in the hands of a few are a hell of a lot more than just paying less taxes. The libertarians pretend they want to bring things back to 1800 but they really want to be 1750's English nobility. It's changed a lot from the bunch of anarchists with a patriotic name since they got huge amounts of corporate funding - now it's all pretty well about keeping the government off the Koch's lawn and helping to cement corporate fuedalism in place.
In other words useful idiots working to undermine the principles their heroes fought for.

Re:It's still the US government no matter who runs

[godefroi]

I didn't argue that there aren't some people who dislike Obama because of his race. I argue that the idea that his legacy will be defined by the general population's hatred for his race is stupid.

You're making excuses for his (perceived or real) poor performance as president.