Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress' Gulf Oil Spill Response Given a 'D' By Commissioners

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-sure-talked-about-it-for-a-few-weeks dept.

ananyo writes "Many of the problems that led to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill have not been addressed, say the members of a commission set up by U.S. President Barack Obama to study the disaster. The group released a report today (PDF) on progress towards its 2011 recommendations for preventing future disasters and improving spill response. The U.S. Congress fares worst in the new report, earning a 'D' rating for its failure to enact any meaningful legislation in response to the disaster. The Restore Act would allocate 80% of any fines that BP pays for the spill under the Clean Water Act to restoring the environment and economies of the states in the Gulf of Mexico, but the act has stalled in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration did better, with a B, thanks in part to new drilling regulations, while the oil industry's efforts to improve safety saw it awarded a C+."

129 comments

  1. Well, on the upside by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

    They scored an "A" on fund-raising from oil companies.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Well, on the upside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As well as protecting them from corporate liability(fine was absolutely trivial compared to harm done), competition from the rest of society(government not only subsidizes oil companies, but restricts harvesting to those who are given contracts), and personal accountability for executives(any of them see a dime of cost for their actions?).

      The commission itself was a joke from its inception. The only criteria of which a government sanctioned investigation like this will approve is more control and involvement by government and less control and involvement by the society these industries supposedly serve.

    2. Re:Well, on the upside by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Well, this D does translate to a Aaa* in financial terms, which is practically junk status.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Well, on the upside by sycodon · · Score: 2

      earning a 'D' rating for its failure to enact any meaningful legislation in response to the disaster.

      Because anytime anything goes wrong, Congress should pass yet another law to cover it.

      I seem to recall that the reason the rig sank in the first place, which jacked up the pipe at the well head, was firefighting efforts swamped it

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Well, on the upside by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Except that all the safety systems in place were turned to silent due to false alarms. That had a little something to do with how the fire began which ultimately let to it's sinking.

  2. But an A by BP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In a related note, BP gave Congress' an A+ on their response to the oil spill.

    1. Re:But an A by BP by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Bingo. To use an auto analogy, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are clogged intake filters.

    2. Re:But an A by BP by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Mitch McConnell looks like he has a clogged OUTTAKE filter. His face looks like he has permanent constipation.

    3. Re:But an A by BP by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what bp did was already illegal.

      there's a problem with how the court/justice is implemented when they're not doing time for it..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:But an A by BP by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point.

      Please post your childish off-topic comments somewhere else.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama's administration gave itself a 'B' . . . dude needs to learn how "patting yourself on the back" is supposed to work.

    1. Re:Self-evaluation. by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh, I'd say he's got a pretty good grasp on it. Remember how modest he was when he roped in with SEAL Team 6 and personally shot Bin Laden?

    2. Re:Self-evaluation. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still two orders of magnitude below flying onto an aircraft carrier deck in a flight suit under a huge "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign.

    3. Re:Self-evaluation. by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need a new Godwin's Law regarding the invocation of Bush. The parent specifically brought up Obama's administration... but you can't make a criticism of Obama without people immediately saying something along the lines of, "Yeah? Well, what about the time that Bush did yada-yada-yah? Huh?"

      Also, I realize I am opening up a whole new branch of Bush-as-Hitler metaphors. Resist the temptation, people. That shit is old.

    4. Re:Self-evaluation. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is Bush actually did what I said, while the GP is just making shit up. Also, I seem to remember an awful lot of Clinton blow-job jokes during the Bush years. Sauce for the goose and all.

    5. Re:Self-evaluation. by sunwukong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I seem to remember an awful lot of Clinton blow-job jokes during the Bush years. Sauce for the goose and all.

      Cue uncomfortable silence.

    6. Re:Self-evaluation. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Yeah. It's only beyond the pale when the Repubs are on the receiving end.

    7. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      The parent specifically brought up Obama's administration.

      To be precise, TFA brought up the Obama administration, I was just commenting on the silliness of the Obama Administration effectively giving itself a 'B' grade.

      We need a new Godwin's Law regarding the invocation of Bush.

      So in this analogy Bush is Hitler? That is, in and of itself a reverse Godwin. You're invoking Hitler to argue that there's something fallacious about referencing the Obama administration's immediate predecessor in power as a reference point for their behavior. The problem is that the reference is so incredibly ugly in the popular conscience that you don't want it raised.

      Godwin's law is a touchstone for lazy argument because the Nazi's are so obviously evil that any attempt to analogize against them renders an argument flawed. The only thing as evil as Nazis are the Nazis themselves.. also maybe Pol Pot and Stalin. Since then even attempts at Genocide are tame by comparison.

      So... is the argument that Bush was such an incredibly BAD president that any attempt to analogize against his presidency is, in effect, comparing yourself to the absolute floor of presidential behavior?

      Just trying to understand the point here.

      -GiH

    8. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      Remember how modest he was when he roped in with SEAL Team 6 and personally shot Bin Laden?

      No. I do remember when he came out and calmly announced that the Obama administration had ordered SEAL Team 6 to go into Pakistan and kill them some Terrorist assholes. I think you can comfortably assume that you will see Obama taking a few more victory laps on killing Osama. You will also have to get used to seeing it in places like text books, because that shit was history in the making.
      -GiH

    9. Re:Self-evaluation. by na1led · · Score: 1

      The class room loser who fails the test, but gives himself a B.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    10. Re:Self-evaluation. by sycodon · · Score: 1, Troll

      So in this analogy Bush is Hitler?

      It would seem that many fervently believe this in general. And they invoke Bush in the same manner as they do Hitler.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:Self-evaluation. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      I remember that announcement....

      "I...I...I...I...My...I...My...I....I...I..." etc.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of your post is a rant where you completely misunderstood your parent post. He didn't say Bush is Hitler. Your feeble, mouth-breathing mind concluded that.

      He suggested a new law that states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bush or the Bush administration approaches 1."

      Or, as he paraphrased it, "We need a new Godwin's Law regarding the invocation of Bush"

      I'm not trying to make personal attacks here, but how you misunderstood that is beyond my comprehension. Are you stupid or something?

      Just trying to understand your point here.

    13. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      A sock puppet speaks!

      How goes the life of being a shill for your employer?

      -GiH

    14. Re:Self-evaluation. by hey! · · Score: 1

      So I noticed. But to be fair, they did *something* and congress did *nothing*, so they're justified in giving themselves at least an C.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      The same could be said about Obama. At least Bush is rarely accused of being secretly planted in the United States by Kenyan muslims on the odd chance the son of a single mom in Hawaii might one day become president and impose sharia on us all . . . or whatever.

      The comment above re: Bush is explicit and specific on a single point. "Mission Accomplished" is part of U.S. History now. It's both impractical and frankly unrealistic to expect the 75% or so of the nation that dislikes President Bush to stop mentioning him because he's been out of office for 3 years. He's still on the Government payroll. He's still a public figure. He's not some random private citizen being held up for mockery.

      There is no reason not to look back and go "oh yeah, THAT'S how Republicans run the country." To ignore history is to repeat it. I do not want to repeat those 8 years.

    16. Re:Self-evaluation. by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, that's a narrative I've yet to hear.

      The fact is that the Left and Obama in particular have used Bush as an excuse for everything. They do so to excess, to the point of it being a Saturday Night Live parody.

      As for going back 8 years, things were going as well as could be expected after 9/11 until about 2007, when the Dems got a hold of the check book again.

      I, for one, do look back with fondness on the dollar something a gallon gas and the 4 something percent unemployment rate.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    17. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do remember when he came out and calmly announced that the Obama administration had ordered SEAL Team 6 to go into Pakistan and kill them some Terrorist assholes.

      I also remember how Obama administration is currently sending drones to Pakistan (and other countries) to kill many more people. Why won't he come out and tell us who those people are and why are they being killed? Maybe apologize about the civilian casualties?
      For some reason, everyone likes to announce successes, but not the failures or anything in the middle.

    18. Re:Self-evaluation. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      I know this is a naive question, but should they perhaps be forcing the companies to do something and fining them instead of "evaluating"? Are they done now?
      Congress seems to act like a cheer-leading squad, with all those non-binding resolutions and evaluations.

    19. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence your need to jump in and interject George Bush when someone criticized Obama.

    20. Re:Self-evaluation. by Xeranar · · Score: 1

      If you're going to get upset when somebody makes a valid comparison because the valid comparison makes your personal views look bad maybe you should stop and think about it? The argument here (and it is a fairly weak one) is that Pres. Obama somehow took much more credit than he should have and is somehow claiming to be personally responsible for Bin Laden's death. Now I fail to see this as it was a Fox News talking point shortly after the reality set in that he did something that the previous president couldn't manage to do whether reasonably possible or not. The major difference though is that Pres. Obama made a nice tasteful press conference and said the reign of terror was over. Pres. Bush flew onto a massive aircraft carrier in a flight suit and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on a large banner as if he personally had done the fighting in Iraq. Neither of them were active military participants in either war and from what little we know of each President's personal handling of the war it would seem that Pres. Obama is more strategically involved and diplomatically aware than the last president. Still the crux of the argument falls upon Pres. Obama being massively overconfident and insinuating his position within the military when he wasn't and Pres. Bush was doing the very thing this argument implies. It's very much an issue of projection. They're projecting all the worse qualities they've experienced over the previous 8 years under Pres. Bush onto Pres. Obama to attempt to create an unwarranted parallel. It's much like the "don't you wish he was back" featuring Pres. Bush's face bumper stickers. So quick to forget and try and turn his presidency into a rather good one when historically he led us into two unfunded wars, quadrupled the national debt because of said wars, and his tax cuts rewarded the wealthiest people in the US and somehow still allowed the economy to collapse. Now the same group wants to elect his slightly more elegant duplicate in Mitt Romney.

      So, now that I have written a diatribe on the subject do we really need to keep going down this path? Conservatives distrust government yet their leaders are completely in bed with large corporations. Can we just accept this and move on? I've accepted their oxymoron lifestyle and figure the best answer is to simply outlast them as a generational issue.

    21. Re:Self-evaluation. by Xeranar · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. I think it's much like comparing Lincoln to Buchanan. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    22. Re:Self-evaluation. by Xeranar · · Score: 1

      Can we acknowledge the government has effectively ZERO CONTROL over oil prices? They have abundant levers that may affect oil prices but have no control over them. As it stands taxes are around 10-20% of a gallon of gas at any given time. Speculation and world demand have driven gas prices up. To compare and contrast is just obtuse. When Bush was in office I wasn't letting myself or anybody I knew actually blame him for gas prices being high, I made a point of defending him as much as I hated to. He is responsible for far worse follies that are actually attributable to him. Thus can we refrain from a bad Fox News talking point? It really makes you sound bad.

    23. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the entire Left's body finally comes to that conclusion after years of blaming Bush.

      But even then Obama refuses to use the levers he has because it would upset the radical enviro-wackos.

      Oh, and I don't believe your lying ass either. You bitched and moan just like all those other sophomoric, demagoging bastards.

    24. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in this analogy Bush is Hitler? That is, in and of itself a reverse Godwin. You're invoking Hitler to argue that there's something fallacious...

      Godwin's law is a touchstone for lazy argument because the Nazi's are so obviously evil that any attempt to analogize against them renders an argument flawed.

      Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

      That's it. It does not speak to flawed reasoning or lost arguments. It merely states that eventually, someone will bring it up.

      What we need is more people who don't need to incorrectly reference tired old memes and then have other people respond to that incorrect reference because they don't have a clue either.

    25. Re:Self-evaluation. by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      Dollar gas and low unemployment? You miss Clinton too, huh? It's okay... I won't tell.

      --
      Sig not found.
    26. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Godwin's Law is only significant because it is a bad argument; as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone using the word, "yodel" also approaches 1, but that has no impact on the discussion as a whole and so is irrelevant. Godwin's Law brings up this particular argument because it poisons the discussion (for the reasons that GiH pointed out above). You may know the literal definition of Godwin's, but you do not appear to have given it much actual thought.

    27. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument here (and it is a fairly weak one) is that Pres. Obama somehow took much more credit than he should have and is somehow claiming to be personally responsible for Bin Laden's death. Now I fail to see this as it was a Fox News talking point shortly after the reality set in that he did something that the previous president couldn't manage to do

      The only thing Obama did was say, "yes, go ahead with the operation." when the hit plan on OBL was brought to him. BFD. I mean really BFD. Obama's supporters have, preposterously, tried to use the green lighting of the OBL hit to portray Obama as a decisive leader.

      The major difference though is that Pres. Obama made a nice tasteful press conference and said the reign of terror was over. Pres. Bush flew onto a massive aircraft carrier in a flight suit and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on a large banner as if he personally had done the fighting in Iraq.

      Obama, who has rarely held press conferences, decided to make an exception for a particularly self-aggrandizing one. Bush made a personal visit to members of the military to congratulate them on completing their mission successfully - something that Presidents routinely do to bolster military morale. It was more than just a photo-op for Bush. Oh, and the "the mission wasn't really accomplished" narrative is just political spin. Nobody said that the "MIssion Accomplished" sign was a declaration that the "War on Terror" was won except Bush's critics. Cynically speaking, the WoT is meant to be permanent and, no, I don't approve of it.

      what little we know of each President's personal handling of the war it would seem that Pres. Obama is more strategically involved

      Obama had been in office for what, 14 months (?), before the media started mentioning that Obama had never met with any military commanders involved in Afghanistan or Iraq. Shortly after, he had a 45 minute meeting with Petraeus - not enough time for any real discussion of strategy.

      and diplomatically aware than the last president.

      When Obama first took office, he deliberately insulted America's closest ally, the UK, by giving the PM a thoughtless gift, a few DVDs that couldn't even be legally played in the UK, by giving the Queen the insulting and arrogant gift of an iPod with some of Obama speeches on it and by having Michelle lay hands on the Queen. Obama subsequently met with a number of other world leaders and, famously, bowed low and deferentially to despots and Arab leaders while treating most European leaders dismissively. Obama made a point of meeting with of Latin American dictators during which he got lectured to by them and, somewhat petulantly, gave a finger-wagging chastisement to Hugo Chavez in response.

      To be fair, Obama didn't really seem to care much about foreign policy other than to bash Bush about war-mongering in order to pander to the peaceniks in the professional left during the campaign. His only real interest in foreign policy in his first two years was to use it to demean and insult the US and its allies. In the latter two years, the Obama has bungled around in respond to events in Libya, Egypt and Syria. The amateurishness of the Obama admin was particularly notable in the early days of the Libyan uprisings. A number of members of the Obama admin were making public statements which all seemed to contradict each other and Obama himself weighed in publicly on events even though no one knew who was behind the uprisings or what the situation on the ground was. Obama has acted exactly as one would expect from a President who had never done or accomplished anything of importance before he defeated Hillary in the primary. Obama has never been a leader and it shows.

      The contrast with the Bush admin is quite stark. I dislike the Bush clan as politicians and don't approve of most of what GWB did as President, including the things he did wrt foreign poli

    28. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is a naive question, but should they perhaps be forcing the companies to do something and fining them instead of "evaluating"?

      The US has a robust legal system for holding companies accountable for their misdeeds and there are plenty of laws already on the books.

      Blithely forcing and fining would be exactly the wrong response in this situation. "There oughta be a law!" is just a foolish, emotional reaction.

      The commission is just an effort at blame shifting and political gaming. It's report means nothing, particularly the letter grading. The Restore Act is just a political stunt as well. The gulf states, except for Florida, are Republican strongholds. If this were really about helping the oil producing gulf states or about protecting the environment, the Republicans would support it.

    29. Re:Self-evaluation. by doston · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how could anybody be worse than Hitler? http://monthlyreview.org/2010/09/01/genocide-denial-with-a-vengeance-old-and-new-imperial-norms

    30. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Shhh ... if you stand very still you can actually see the right re-writing history.

    31. Re:Self-evaluation. by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Yes, hatred. A classic basis for reasoned political discourse.

    32. Re:Self-evaluation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that depends upon whether or not you remember (you = NOT) that the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner was hanging up there BECAUSE the Lincoln WAS JUST RETURNING from operations in the gulf... For those of US who WERE stationed ON the ship: YES, it was an ACCOMPLISHED MISSION.

      EVERY ship returning from a mission wears a similar banner, just as ground-pounders coming home fly a similar banner when they disembark and meet their families. The fact that GWB was there under it was simply because WE were the only ship coming home at that time.

    33. Re:Self-evaluation. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the Republicans would love your new law. Just like the stupid "Godwin!!!" posts that do nothing other than derail any conversation involving Nazi Germany, the Republicans could use this new law to derail any conversation about Bush they don't like.

  4. Congress should get an "A" if RA is slush fund by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Hmmm...I think Congress should get an "A" if the goal is "progress towards...preventing future disasters" and the Restore Act is basically a slush fund that delivers "80% of any fines that BP pays for the spill under the Clean Water Act to...the states".

    1. Re:Congress should get an "A" if RA is slush fund by suutar · · Score: 1

      only if they pass it. Though I'd raise them to a C if it at least passes the House.

    2. Re:Congress should get an "A" if RA is slush fund by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Drill baby drill is actually an environmental push.

      Drill ALL the oil - no more spills.

      Simple!

      --
      Check your premises.
  5. Oh really? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Informative

    The administration ought to get an 'F', given that they've approved Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean. You think it's tough to clean up a spill in the nice temperate Gulf of Mexico? Wait until we have a midwinter blowout up there, with no idea how to clean it up or even stop it.

    You'd think they'd at least learn something. Apparently not.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in the face of Drill, baby, drill.

    2. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The administration ought to get an 'F', given that they've approved Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean. You think it's tough to clean up a spill in the nice temperate Gulf of Mexico? Wait until we have a midwinter blowout up there, with no idea how to clean it up or even stop it.

      You'd think they'd at least learn something. Apparently not.

      It just has to stay intact until the other side is in power, so they would get the blame.

    3. Re:Oh really? by Satire+Jones · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that over 200ft below water is essentially the same anywhere on the globe: it's cold, dark, and shit just doesn't work like you might expect to... This should discourage drilling in favor of easier methods, but people are stupid as a whole and particularly persistent.

  6. commission set up by Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ho hum, so a commission created by the democratically controlled executive branch somehow determines the republican controlled congress is not doing a good job. I wish I could believe this was relevant, but I am too jaded to believe this report is anything but political maneuvering 6 months before an election.

    1. Re:commission set up by Obama? by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard not to give "not doing shit about it" an F, partisan or not.

    2. Re:commission set up by Obama? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ho hum, so a commission created by the democratically controlled executive branch somehow determines the republican controlled congress is not doing a good job. I wish I could believe this was relevant, but I am too jaded to believe this report is anything but political maneuvering 6 months before an election.

      My first thought on reading the summary was "Obama's commission said that Obama did good, and his political enemies did bad - big surprise there, eh?"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:commission set up by Obama? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I dunno... maybe these people:

      http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/page/commission-members

      are all supporters of Obama... but after reading their bios, I find no reason to believe they're more or less supportive of Obama than your average businessmen or scientists, other than they were selected while Obama was in office. If fact, there's 2 co-chairmen; one's a democrat and the other's a republican. All members seem to be experts in their various fields, specifically marine ecosystems, engineering and oil extraction/spill cleanup (a couple of Exxon Valdez veterans on that list; sounds very useful and logical to me).

      Briefly perusing the meeting minutes, it seems they've been up to a lot more than grading Congress and Obama's administration, anyway. If you have a problem with what they're doing, this site's where to go to learn more, and it's surprisingly full of info.

    4. Re:commission set up by Obama? by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Thank you for not just making a kneejerk comment and for actually providing information.

      --
      God is imaginary
  7. I'll give them a passing grade... by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... for doing nothing. This was, as I understand it, more a problem of lax regulation than lack of regulation.

    I don't like the "but we must do SOMEthing" philosophy. Most problems are caused by solutions.

    1. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BUT BUT BUT BUT the free market will take care of it! Incentives and all that shit.

      The free market doesn't work when the fat cats have control over all the levers of government. This just shows it once again.

    2. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free market doesn't work when the fat cats have control over all the levers of government.

      So you're saying that a free market doesn't work when it has state support oligarchies?
      I agree, for a free market to work, it has to actually be (shockingly) free, instead of being divided between "too big to fail" and "too small to make suitable donations" by the lawmakers.

    3. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The free market isn't free when the laws are purchased.

    4. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a free market then the fat cats don't need control over the levers of the government.
       
      What shows here is your inability to understand what the term "free market" really means.

    5. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obligatory: http://www.despair.com/government.html

    6. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would think that in this case, the proper something to do is spank the regulators that were so lax so that in future the existing regulations will be applied.

      There's no point in new regulations if they will be enforced like the current ones.

    7. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't like the "but we must do SOMEthing" philosophy. Most problems are caused by solutions.

      I'll agree with your disagreement. Government solutions usually need more solutions.

      Story time! I have an in-law who works for a certain energy company that had a pipeline leak within the past few years (it's not BP, and I honestly don't remember the name). He's a manager for a department of about a hundred people whose primary job is to produce reports to accommodate whatever silly requests the government agents want. Among the requests I've heard about:

      • Daily updates on the age of a pipeline
      • Metallurgical review of a piece of pipe, confirmed by four independent metallurgists
      • A list of all airplanes who would be crossing the area during repairs
      • Justification for every piece of equipment (including things like radios and portable toilets) at the repair site
      • Marital statuses of all construction workers

      As it was explained to me, the vast majority of those agents were contractors, who make requests simply to look like they're doing something, which then entitles them to a piece of the government's clean-up money. The energy company faces enormous fines for not complying with every request, no matter how ridiculous the request or how indirect the connection to the incident may be. The end result is that the government money goes to producing useless reports, the company's repair efforts get less funding, and my in-law has a job.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      Most problems are caused by solutions.

      Wrong. Most problems are caused by empty platitudes. Why do you hate America?

      --
      -
    9. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      BUT BUT BUT BUT the free market will take care of it! Incentives and all that shit.
      Is your supposition that the best laws arisein response to a crisis before cooler heads can prevail?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    10. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      There also has to be consequences for you actions, like stealing from your customers.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      and the media is purchased too

    12. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is why the proper solution is to remove all violent regulation that prevents us from actually determining how the industry should function. Put society back in the driver seat instead of these corrupt and inept bureaucrats and the corporate suits that bribe them. End the violent domination over us in the direction of this industry. The biggest deregulation benefit would be to do away the legal shield called 'the corporation' itself. By abolishing the government protection from accountability to the rest of society, responsibility would return. Second, specifically for the oil industry, would be to remove the legal fiction that makes the US government the owner over all the land, which would in turn end rent seekers from getting privilege in oil harvesting contracts, deciding who gets us oil by political pull rather than productive capacity. There are(with no hyperbole whatsoever) over 100,000 pages of regulations that could be removed from the federal register to give control back to society, but those two would be a great first step in that direction.

      Unfortunately, government never removes the controls that cause these problems unless there is no room left to try anything else and they are about to collapse. Instead, politicians will simply add new laws to try to mimic the natural process they have destroyed, while only succeeding in further distorting the market away from what we all want. They will set up some basic laws, then an agency or two, then an over arching agency, then a commission, then a slight nationalization, and so on. All the while this regulation increases, they get useful idiots to claim that deregulation is to blame. It is embarrassingly predictable.

    13. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by trout007 · · Score: 2

      Its all a big scam anyway. Who is really capable of writing meaningful safety regulations? Only people in the industry with the experience. So who do you pick in the industry to write the regulations? Your biggest donors of course. And when they write the regulations you can be sure they will write them in order to benefit them.

      It's like the lead paint in toys. The big toy makers wrote regulations that made it near impossible for startup companies to comply even if they made the toys themselves and had full traceability in their production.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    14. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      The free market isn't free when the laws are purchased.

      Yes it is. That's precisely the definition of a free market. The person with the most money are free to do whatever they can. In a free market, buying laws is just another business strategy. Sure, the free market doesn't remain free after that, but, however you like it, it is still permissible in a free market. The crazy thing is people I keep talking to think economics plays by the definitions of terms and never evolves out of a system.

      Free markets are not self sustaining.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    15. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
      --Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    16. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an odd misunderstanding of free markets. Buying a law that prevents the actions of other actors .. is not a free market in any sense. Free markets cannot be free in the presence of coercion. Government corruption is coercion. You think "free market" means "if I feel like doing it, I will because its a free goddamn market".

      Ignorance is self-sustaining.

    17. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were problems they could have addressed, such as allowing in a time of crisis cleanup vessels to sidestep overly strict rules that usually apply to ship discharges. There is little reason for oil cleaners/skimmers to discharging pure water when they are participating in a cleanup effort. It's absurd.

      As it stood, vessels designed to separate the water and oil weren't in operation because they couldn't discharge pure water (or rather, any oil of substantial amount given the volumes processed), only like 99% pure. So they weren't allowed to operate unless they discharged the 99%+1% into a discharge/holding vessel. I guess letting the oil keep on the surface at 100% was better than cleaning up 99% of it.

      I get that you don' t want ships at sea to discharge their fuel cleanouts (such as with separation with Bunker C or #6 or whatever its called these days), but some flexibility then and now would have been nice.

      Problems are problems. You fix them. There are problems caused by the current laws that were solutions themselves. You don't use generalities and scare tactics to immobilize on good, corrective actions.

    18. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "and you know what creates wage-slaves. wages!"

      (forever waiting for the duck to fly down and give me a hundred dollars..)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:I'll give them a passing grade... by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      You Lucky Ducky
      http://comics.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1082944/-Lucky-Ducky-in-Tricklin-Down-?detail=hide

      --
      -
  8. Is responsive legislation ever a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Typically it's way over the top and far more harmful than good.
    So I'm going to say it's a good thing they got a D there.

    1. Re:Is responsive legislation ever a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Patriot Act being a prime example.

  9. The government is amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Our government only managed to scrap through with a (averaged) grade of C, and it got to grade its own work.

    It's good to see that democracy is working so well.

  10. meaningful legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    failure to enact any meaningful legislation in response to the

    That's one of the problems when you mix corporations and capitalism. It takes legislation to make companies behave in an appropriate manner. BP should have made sure that a complete disaster would not occur. Taking risks and ignoring social responsibilities is a moral and ethical problem within corporate cultures. BP execs should have been punished way beyond the slap on the wrist. BP should not even exist today.

  11. Wash, Rinse, Repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it. Let's destroy the environment because we're too busy playing politics.

    You could pick any disaster, and do a report on it, and the main roadblock from the report will be politicians. Getting anything done to clean it up, prevent it from happening again, or fix it alltogehter, politicians will still be bickering over the perception of responsibility and how a market must remain free, despite said market actually not being free in the first place.

    DC needs an enema, and bad!

  12. as the old saying goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If con is the opposite of pro then isn't congress the opposite of progress?

  13. WHAT?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like the "but we must do SOMEthing" philosophy. Most problems are caused by solutions.

    LOL, how is this shit modded up?

    Please, don't try to fix or prevent any future oil spills because that is tampering with the free market and that just causes the worst problems. Hahahah, oh my god, does your daddy work in a Texan oil refinery or something?

    You're almost there, now you just need to explain how the oil spill is actually the fault of the government interfering with pure unadulterated capitalism.

    1. Re:WHAT?! by PickyH3D · · Score: 2

      That's not at all what he said; I am not sure where all of this "free market" crackdown is coming from on Slashdot recently, particularly when it's not mentioned anywhere else. His point is that the actual regulators--the government people--were just as corrupt as the people doing the drilling in this case. What legislation should be passed by the government to prevent government corruption? Anti-corruption laws? Those exist.

      Besides, the entire fiasco was not even as serious of a problem for BP as it should have been, beyond PR, thanks to the way that the administration forced them to handle it financially. Practically half of BP's escrow turned into a tax write-off (read: effectively funded by US taxpayers) for them rather than an expense for doing something incredibly stupid, and bad. Me thinks there was a bit of bias in the entire "study" in missing a $10 billion practical-expense that the government incurred as a result of BP's escrow account that was supposed to be entirely their own money (and the ~$20 billion was, but the $10 billion tax write off thanks to their spending sure made that a lot more palatable for a company that actually has that much money sitting around).

      It's terribly shocking that a committee setup by the President would give him the best grade while avoiding an A to act like it was not biased.

    2. Re:WHAT?! by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      His point is that the actual regulators--the government people--were just as corrupt as the people doing the drilling in this case. What legislation should be passed by the government to prevent government corruption? Anti-corruption laws? Those exist.

      Oversight.
      Fund the goddamn auditors instead of assuming everything will be hunky dory.
      Yes, this costs money. No, it does not cost more than the accidents it will prevent.
      Fuck you* for trying to defund them because if they've done their job, reduced accidents, and now they seem to be a waste of money.

      *you know who you are. if you have to ask, then it's probably you.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  14. Useless information by Iniamyen · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, the commissioners were given an 'A+' on their use of overly simplified letter grades for summarizing complex issues.

    1. Re:Useless information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A++++ WOULD SPILL OIL AGAIN

  15. In other news by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    A commission set up by Obama rates the Obama administration highest of all. And this comes as a surprise to...who exactly?

    Of course, they couldn't give Obama an A. That would just be gratuitous bootlicking.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  16. ignoring the bigger problem by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    congressional approval is the worst ever. nobody thinks they are doing a job.

    Congress gets an F.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  17. Also in other news... by dingo_kinznerhook · · Score: 1

    A commission set up to evaluate the work done by Barack Obama's commission tasked with evaluating the work of Congress in evaluating the Deepwater Horizon incident has given the commission a rating of 'C', or barely satisfactory, for their evaluation of Congress evaluating the Deepwater Horizon spill.

    --
    "God does not play Minecraft with the world." - Albert Einstein
  18. According to grade school.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 'D' is passing. No child-like organization left behind!

  19. How much money did this report cost? by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    Please tell me there's more to this report than that PDF. It's hopelessly light on details and is full of weasel words, it talks about concerns without an indication of how well founded they were. There are no real figures, no expert opinions, citations or anything. There isn't even much indication of how they arrived at their grades.

    If I wrote an essay the way this report is written I'd have got a fail.

    1. Re:How much money did this report cost? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      The real problem was crooked regulators. The regulatory agency was responsible for both collecting leasing fees from the oil companies as well as regulating them. Holy conflict of interest Batman!

      With that sort of setup no wonder the regulations were laxly applied. And of course the regulatory agency was frequently taken to parties stocked with all sort of goodies by the oil companies. Including prostitutes.

      http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Oil-Spills/U.S.-To-Restructure-Offshore-Drilling-Regulatory-Agency-In-Wake-Of-Oil-Spill.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ocean_Energy_Management,_Regulation_and_Enforcement#Gifts.2C_gratuities_and_the_revolving_door

    2. Re:How much money did this report cost? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You don't want to do anything complex in a PDF. That's just a set up for failure to display, trojans and other malware.

      Our government understands this sort of thing. Progress as promised!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. Only the Government by na1led · · Score: 1

    ...can screw things up and get a passing grade. BP fired people who might be responsible for this mess, and our Government gets a pat on the back for doing nothing to protect our waters. I wish I could cheat on my tests, and give myself a B when I got all the wrong answers.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Only the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People want no government regulation. Then disaster strikes and blames the government for not doing enough.

  21. Passing grade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So...they passed?

  22. Re:actually the free market by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    So your definition of "free market" boils down to "might makes right", yes? Glad we got that down by now.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  23. Re:actually the free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ALWAYS WORKS

    Pick up any intro to economics textbook, and read the chapter on "externalities".

  24. Meanwhile in Brazil.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    .... it is funny that the accident in the Gulf of Mexico was in part responsible for a very harsh response to a tiny spill just south of the equator:

    http://www.economist.com/node/21542179

    If anything, other countries have tried to learn from this disaster and the way it was handled.

  25. Re:actually the free market by forkfail · · Score: 1

    The free market always works until it stops working.

    And when is that, you ask?

    It's when the concentration of wealth and power - the end results of any free market let run loose to long - become great enough that real competition no longer exists, and the laws can be purchased by those with said wealth and power.

    And we passed that point sometime between Eisenhower and Reagan.

    --
    Check your premises.
  26. Who do they think they're fooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress gets a D for not passing new laws on the most regulated industry in the world? Give me a break, they should get an A+ for that. It wasn't lack of regulation that led to the break, and it wasn't regulation that got it cleaned up.

    Obama gets a B for new regulations? Give me a fucking break. He should get an F for stalling the response to the spill because of union rules about who crews the cleanup ships, another F for stalling the capping of the well because of those same union crew rules, and another F for driving drillers out of the gulf with ridiculous regulations that do nothing to improve drilling safety and everything to put money in Obama's campaign coffers.

  27. FTFY by smitty97 · · Score: 1

    Fill in the blanks: Congress' __________ Response Given a 'D' By ___________

    --
    mod me funny
  28. Re:actually the free market by Bigby · · Score: 1

    If you absorb the externalities into the market, then you don't have externalities.

  29. Easy to criticize obama about... without fantasies by microbox · · Score: 2

    "I...I...I...I...My...I...My...I....I...I..." etc.

    Pay attention now. Obama uses personal pronouns less than any modern president. Yes, there has been empirical analysis on the topic. In particular, I refer you to the work of James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who specialises in the use of pronouns.

    None of this matters, of course, because political discourse continues to devolve to "four-legs-good, obama-bad" for the right. One might reasonably think that the left is just as bad, and they are pretty bad; however, this is simply not true. And for that, I refer you to the obama hate machine, which chronicles just how bizarre republican vitriol has become in the last 4 years.

    And your comment is a perfect case in point. In the absence of any real criticism, we have nonsensical and factually inaccurate ad-hominems. There is plenty to criticise Obama about without making stuff up.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  30. Learn the lessons of Kamp Krusty by Kohath · · Score: 1

    "You know, a D turns into a B so easily. You just got greedy."

  31. Re:actually the free market by tibman · · Score: 1

    That's what many environmental laws are for. Companies are forced to clean up (or prevent) their environmental damage and pass that cost onto their product consumers. If companies weren't forced to do this, rivers would be on fire.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  32. Vast amounts of money... by Livius · · Score: 1

    ...or not.

    "any fines that BP pays"

    I remain sceptical as to the paying part.

  33. Regardless by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Be that as it may, if they had just let the fire burn, the rig may not have sank, which busted the pipe and caused the massive spill. They could have worked the unit on the sea floor while most of the oil was burned off topside.

    I do remember some newsbabe saying that the EPA insisted they try to douse the flames due to the "pollution" it was causing.

    Ironic.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  34. Contractors, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you mean private individuals whose position comes on them creating some reason to justify their employment?

    How exactly is the problem with government as a whole, as opposed to the privatization of government into the hands of those who benefit not by doing their job properly, but who have corrupted the process for their own benefit?

    What does that tell you? Which party is the one who continually claims that outside individuals are somehow going to be better? Whose ideology is that?

    1. Re:Contractors, eh? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Blame should be apportioned where blame is due. Mod parent up.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  35. There ought to be a law by PPH · · Score: 1

    Oil spills are illegal. How about that?

    Honestly, not everything can be fixed by Congress. Sometimes, the administration has to step up, enforce the laws and regulations they've got and kick some ass when they see violations.

    The Restore Act would allocate 80% of any fines that BP pays for the spill under the Clean Water Act to restoring the environment and economies of the states in the Gulf of Mexico,

    I see the law of unintended consequences coming into play here, big time. So now, gov't revenues in support of various economic recovery programs will be linked to oil spills?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Re:Easy to criticize obama about... without fantas by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Poor little leftist thinks Obama is being unfairly attacked.

    They fact is that your guy took credit for the raid. He made it seem as if HE put into place the mechanisms to find him, HE made some difficult decision to go ahead and then lauded himself for making it.

    If you can't see that, all I can say is that the Kool Aid has blurred your vision.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  37. Going to tell you 1 I have SEEN myself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told this to GirlInTraining here a week or so ago, true story -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2764255&cid=39577853 & it mirrors a lot of what you said in fact... especially on "clean up" money. First I saw it happening, utterly disregarding 'laws' (there is no justice, only money that gets you plenty of 'legal law'), & utterly snowing people ontop of it later, with a company that offers "cleanup solutions" (oh sure, but do they get FOLLOWED is the question? From what I saw roughly 10++ yrs. before it in the 1st part?? Hell no! It's cheaper to pay the fines than do the job right... WTF!)

    * Both of the parts of that were from decades ago, and I certainly do NOT think things have gotten any better... perhaps even worse (or perhaps merely more exposed via today's internet being so available & "editorial based control" from the purse strings holders CANNOT control that leaking diff. viewpoints &/or sides of the story).

    APK

    P.S.=> Makes me ill... the more I see of life and the 1/2 truth b.s. we get fed daily, when we're really so much more than that - I think it all "comes down from the top", ala "attitude reflects leadership" & what I see of our leadership is a pack of short-sighted fools + greedy bastards who are addicted to the heroin needle of money & power, driving it all. Is there any other way? I hope so, and I hope we discover it before we destroy ourselves... that's all, & sorry to bother you or have wasted your time here also if you feel that is all this is from me... apk

  38. Re:Easy to criticize obama about... without fantas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor little leftist thinks Obama is being unfairly attacked.

    I don't think Obama is being unfairly attacked -- after-all, you have to have a brain to attack someone. Just think you are another moron political foot-soldier.

  39. Fuck U and Fuck S by OldHawk777 · · Score: 0

    Provides more Fuck US; So, nothing new and all change is bad?

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  40. Shot the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He accused you of making stuff up... and you attacked the messenger. Wouldn't it be more mature to figure out if you really were making stuff up, instead of attack, attack, attack? At what stage do you take feedback from the universe?

  41. This is not the commission by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Many of the problems that led to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill have not been addressed, say the members of a commission set up by U.S. President Barack Obama to study the disaster.

    If you look at who released the report you'll see that the commission set up by the President completed its work and was disbanded. This report was issued by an environmental action group which claims some previous commission members among its founders.

    I assume these people are pushing their own agenda, maybe because its an election year, maybe because they really care. But I note that they are all Obama appointees.

  42. Re:Easy to criticize obama about... without fantas by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    Yes. He made the decision. Not Bush, not some general, Obama did it. Deal with it.

  43. Re:Easy to criticize obama about... without fantas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a touch decision...military comes to him and says we can get him, we have it all planned out. Even then Obama prevaricated...coward. I only hope no one really comes after us before he's voted out because he'd probably just go into hiding.

  44. BS here for sure by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Of course this is just another rant against the big machine covering everything up, but making small efforts here and there to make it look like they actually care to their people....but all in all, there should have been way more activity then there was on this issue, but as we saw, a lot of media was redirected to other things instead of reading about the spill non stop years later, being it was the biggest disaster man made or other wise ever to hit this planet since man
    came into power.....when you consider the impact to all people, sea life, and even land life.....it is sad that it was able to be swept under the carpet.

    I think there should be a global recognition of power for mining at sea and also set such high fines, that a company doing it once would be crippled, and twice would be gone....when they make trillions per year in profits, it is tough to make them cringe when you tell them they have to pay 65 billion...chump change for them really!

  45. Re:Easy to criticize obama about... without fantas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, what a real president should have done was have given up entirely so that the military wasn't on the case to begin with? I mean, if you're that incredibly critical of the President then why aren't you being even harder on Bush, who literally had stopped trying altogether?

    Listen, I get that you don't like Obama. Okay. He has done some things wrong, too! There is legitimate criticism to be had! But when you refuse to admit that he did something you like, you're just discrediting your own testimony. What use is your disapproval when it is entirely impossible to escape it? Your opinion becomes meaningless. Obama is bad because Obama is bad, and it doesn't matter what he says or does. That's not even an opinion; it's just dogma. There is no thought at all in that assessment; why should anyone listen to you?

    I'm not really defending Obama in this instance (I think Osama should have been arrested rather than murdered) but thought you could use some constructive criticism yourself.

  46. Re:actually the free market by Bigby · · Score: 1

    I agree. Those externalities should be priced or be subject to civil lawsuits. This is part of the free market idea. Property rights and contracts must be enforced to maintain a free market. After all, it isn't an anarchist market.

  47. Truly free markets don't have copyrights. by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Truly free markets don't have copyrights and trademarks. They don't even actually have money. They are free and have to be navigated the same way Arab caravan traders worked,thru barter with no hope or reliance on any sort of government or cultural agents in common.

    1. Re:Truly free markets don't have copyrights. by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      What's to stop a free agent in a free market from getting together with another free agent, and making a deal between them to allow each other to copy each other's stuff? What's to stop this new partnership when, due to their sharing of work, they become more efficient and thus more powerful in the market and in doing so attract other free agents in making similar deals? What's to stop these free agents from turning these agreements into a formal system?

      People keep saying "this and this doesn't belong in a free market", but they don't understand that there's nothing stopping them from happening in a free market. If a free market somehow stophttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792695&cid=39725917#s free agents from making agreements between each other about copying each other's work, then it's not a free market.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.