Breaking...Federal inspectors watch porn instead of watching oil rig.

[Samson]

I think what we are seeing is the result of a decade or more of pro-energy policy with minimal oversight and downright corruption. While it's convenient to blame Obama, it would be like blaming Bush for the economic collapse - the result of years of economic policy, not the actions of any one administration.

You're right.

However, "let's be clear," Obama was supposed to CHANGE the "decade or more" status quo.

I don't recall that Obama said, "The Bush Administration and Dirk Kempthorn has done a wonderfiul job with DOI, so I'm appointing Ken Salazar to just keep things running the way they've been running."

BTW: With Salazar, Obama also continued the historical trend since 1989 (NO CHANGE) of appointing Sec of Interiors from states that HAVE NO COASTLINE!!

 

[Samson]

you know, if you made any sense at all and didn't just continually babble partisan crapola, I would agree with you once in a while....

You're correct........The Obama Administration has never made a mistake.

***Now where's my rep****

We do not know one way or the other if the Obama administration's Mineral management people watched porn or not.....at least not yet...

this was in the article that PP posted...

Salazar said he’s ordered an investigation into whether ethics violations persisted after he put in place new rules last year.

What we do know AS FACT is that this porn viewing, sex doing, drug luring scandal with the MM employees DID take place during the Bush Administration....

we do not know if it continued under the Obama administration, at least not yet....be certain we will find out, IF IT DID occur.

Yep, I know my attitude toward porn has taken a 180 since Obama's been in office.

 

[Coyote]

I think what we are seeing is the result of a decade or more of pro-energy policy with minimal oversight and downright corruption. While it's convenient to blame Obama, it would be like blaming Bush for the economic collapse - the result of years of economic policy, not the actions of any one administration.

It's not Obama's fault those inspectors were abusing their positions....it's not due to minimal oversight either....it's HUMAN ERROR...COMPLACENCY...STUPIDITY! Me as a supervisor have to correct this behavior in my subordinates on occasion.

They call MMS a culture of corruption that has been going on a long time...I'd say it was due to greed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is the story true? Is it useful?

 

[Coyote]

I think what we are seeing is the result of a decade or more of pro-energy policy with minimal oversight and downright corruption. While it's convenient to blame Obama, it would be like blaming Bush for the economic collapse - the result of years of economic policy, not the actions of any one administration.

You're right.

However, "let's be clear," Obama was supposed to CHANGE the "decade or more" status quo.

I don't recall that Obama said, "The Bush Administration and Dirk Kempthorn has done a wonderfiul job with DOI, so I'm appointing Ken Salazar to just keep things running the way they've been running."

BTW: With Salazar, Obama also continued the historical trend since 1989 (NO CHANGE) of appointing Sec of Interiors from states that HAVE NO COASTLINE!!

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. There have only been 4 Secretary's of the Interior since 1989 (hardly a historical trend), 23 out of 50 states have a coast line, slightly less than half...and the Dept of Interior overseas a lot more than just coastlines and coastline drilling.

 

[Samson]

I think what we are seeing is the result of a decade or more of pro-energy policy with minimal oversight and downright corruption. While it's convenient to blame Obama, it would be like blaming Bush for the economic collapse - the result of years of economic policy, not the actions of any one administration.

You're right.

However, "let's be clear," Obama was supposed to CHANGE the "decade or more" status quo.

I don't recall that Obama said, "The Bush Administration and Dirk Kempthorn has done a wonderfiul job with DOI, so I'm appointing Ken Salazar to just keep things running the way they've been running."

BTW: With Salazar, Obama also continued the historical trend since 1989 (NO CHANGE) of appointing Sec of Interiors from states that HAVE NO COASTLINE!!

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. There have only been 4 Secretary's of the Interior since 1989 (hardly a historical trend), 23 out of 50 states have a coast line, slightly less than half...and the Dept of Interior overseas a lot more than just coastlines and coastline drilling.

My point is Obama ran on a Promise of "CHANGE."

Not only didn't Salazar's appointment to Sec of Interior not effect change BEFORE April 20th, (and it still hasn't) but the very appointment of yet another Sec of DOI from a land-locked state where drilling offshore might as well be on another planet, demostrates that Obama's intent to "CHANGE" was nothing more than rhetoric.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

 

[Samson]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

He could board a submergible, and personally block the leaking pipe, and be accused of not first consulting with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
.

 

[DiamondDave]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

Resign

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

This is one of those things that happened on Obama's watch and he own's it. This whole oil spill is being turned into his "Katrina" so to speak....Obama needs to rethink his strategy and display some leadership!!!!

 

[Samson]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

This is one of those things that happened on Obama's watch and he own's it. This whole oil spill is being turned into his "Katrina" so to speak....Obama needs to rethink his strategy and display some leadership!!!!

You mean he needs to issue another statement blaming BP, and recognising their financial responsibility for cleaning it up?

 

[Coyote]

You're right.

However, "let's be clear," Obama was supposed to CHANGE the "decade or more" status quo.

I don't recall that Obama said, "The Bush Administration and Dirk Kempthorn has done a wonderfiul job with DOI, so I'm appointing Ken Salazar to just keep things running the way they've been running."

BTW: With Salazar, Obama also continued the historical trend since 1989 (NO CHANGE) of appointing Sec of Interiors from states that HAVE NO COASTLINE!!

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. There have only been 4 Secretary's of the Interior since 1989 (hardly a historical trend), 23 out of 50 states have a coast line, slightly less than half...and the Dept of Interior overseas a lot more than just coastlines and coastline drilling.

My point is Obama ran on a Promise of "CHANGE."

Not only didn't Salazar's appointment to Sec of Interior not effect change BEFORE April 20th, (and it still hasn't) but the very appointment of yet another Sec of DOI from a land-locked state where drilling offshore might as well be on another planet, demostrates that Obama's intent to "CHANGE" was nothing more than rhetoric.

Why does it have to be a secretary from a coast line state to qualify as "change" or be dismissed as rhetoric? How do you know there has not been any changes prior to 4/20?

 

[Coyote]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

This is one of those things that happened on Obama's watch and he own's it. This whole oil spill is being turned into his "Katrina" so to speak....Obama needs to rethink his strategy and display some leadership!!!!

BP is a private company. Aren't there limitations on what the government can force? In addition? What would be a better strategy? What "fixes" can be done that aren't being tried? Typically - when there are disasters of this type - or natural disasters - one thing the government CAN do, directly - is cut through red tape to bring relief through more quickly and efficiently - is that being done?

It's difficult to compare it with Katrina, though everyone wants to. Katrina was a natural disaster - there was no private entity responsible or culpable to get in the way. What Bush failed at, was what Johnson succeeded at when faced with Hurricane Betsy.

I think in some ways, the BP oil spill is comparable to 9/11 - a disaster of unprecedented scale, that we don't really know how to fix, we don't know the long term effects and we don't know what the long term effects will be of the materials we use to try to fix it. It's in deep deep water - have we ever had anything like this before? Bush handled 9/11 well, that was his finest moment but he will forever be blamed for allowing it to happen even though there is no evidence he could have prevented it. How Obama fairs here, remains to be seen - blame is often levied simply because of partisan politics.

What should the President do differently? Expand the rhetoric? I'm not sure at this point, becuase BP, not the Federal Government is the one with the technology and means to attempt to fix it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Tell me what actions might the President taken to be completely free of criticism? None.

This is one of those things that happened on Obama's watch and he own's it. This whole oil spill is being turned into his "Katrina" so to speak....Obama needs to rethink his strategy and display some leadership!!!!

BP is a private company. Aren't there limitations on what the government can force? In addition? What would be a better strategy? What "fixes" can be done that aren't being tried? Typically - when there are disasters of this type - or natural disasters - one thing the government CAN do, directly - is cut through red tape to bring relief through more quickly and efficiently - is that being done?

It's difficult to compare it with Katrina, though everyone wants to. Katrina was a natural disaster - there was no private entity responsible or culpable to get in the way. What Bush failed at, was what Johnson succeeded at when faced with Hurricane Betsy.

I think in some ways, the BP oil spill is comparable to 9/11 - a disaster of unprecedented scale, that we don't really know how to fix, we don't know the long term effects and we don't know what the long term effects will be of the materials we use to try to fix it. It's in deep deep water - have we ever had anything like this before? Bush handled 9/11 well, that was his finest moment but he will forever be blamed for allowing it to happen even though there is no evidence he could have prevented it. How Obama fairs here, remains to be seen - blame is often levied simply because of partisan politics.

What should the President do differently? Expand the rhetoric? I'm not sure at this point, becuase BP, not the Federal Government is the one with the technology and means to attempt to fix it.

Where Bush failed in Katrina was relying on the governor and mayor of New Orleans to enact their evac plan....

Where Obama has failed is NOT allowing the sand berms to be at least started...and his failure to take a leadership role in protecting those wetlands and mangrove swamps. How many days to get the ACoE to make a decision...how many? Now finally after all this time...we see government officials on site at least making an appearance....and Obama's flyover last week? Residents and business owners are still waiting for help!!!

 

[Samson]

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. There have only been 4 Secretary's of the Interior since 1989 (hardly a historical trend), 23 out of 50 states have a coast line, slightly less than half...and the Dept of Interior overseas a lot more than just coastlines and coastline drilling.

My point is Obama ran on a Promise of "CHANGE."

Not only didn't Salazar's appointment to Sec of Interior not effect change BEFORE April 20th, (and it still hasn't) but the very appointment of yet another Sec of DOI from a land-locked state where drilling offshore might as well be on another planet, demostrates that Obama's intent to "CHANGE" was nothing more than rhetoric.

Why does it have to be a secretary from a coast line state to qualify as "change" or be dismissed as rhetoric? How do you know there has not been any changes prior to 4/20?

You're completely right: Salazar was probably planning to investigate impropriety at DOI just before April 20, and that appointing yet another Sec of DOI from a state with no shoreline qualifies as "change."

 

[Coyote]

This is one of those things that happened on Obama's watch and he own's it. This whole oil spill is being turned into his "Katrina" so to speak....Obama needs to rethink his strategy and display some leadership!!!!

BP is a private company. Aren't there limitations on what the government can force? In addition? What would be a better strategy? What "fixes" can be done that aren't being tried? Typically - when there are disasters of this type - or natural disasters - one thing the government CAN do, directly - is cut through red tape to bring relief through more quickly and efficiently - is that being done?

It's difficult to compare it with Katrina, though everyone wants to. Katrina was a natural disaster - there was no private entity responsible or culpable to get in the way. What Bush failed at, was what Johnson succeeded at when faced with Hurricane Betsy.

I think in some ways, the BP oil spill is comparable to 9/11 - a disaster of unprecedented scale, that we don't really know how to fix, we don't know the long term effects and we don't know what the long term effects will be of the materials we use to try to fix it. It's in deep deep water - have we ever had anything like this before? Bush handled 9/11 well, that was his finest moment but he will forever be blamed for allowing it to happen even though there is no evidence he could have prevented it. How Obama fairs here, remains to be seen - blame is often levied simply because of partisan politics.

What should the President do differently? Expand the rhetoric? I'm not sure at this point, becuase BP, not the Federal Government is the one with the technology and means to attempt to fix it.

Where Bush failed in Katrina was relying on the governor and mayor of New Orleans to enact their evac plan....

No, that's just more of the same old finger-pointing blame game. Look at how Johnson handled Betsy. That is what Bush should have and could have done as President.

Where Obama has failed is NOT allowing the sand berms to be at least started...and his failure to take a leadership role in protecting those wetlands and mangrove swamps.

Is it that simple? Where as I can give you and example of how Bush could have handled Katrina by citing Johnson, can you give me an example of a similar situation to this oil spill that was handled better?

As far as taking a "leadership role" in protecting the wetlands - wasn't there a great deal of uncertainty and misinformation about the extent of the spill, where it would go, when and how it could be shut off? What specifically could Obama have done to take a "leadership role" in protecting these wetlands? The technology and materials to that were with BP weren't they?

As far as the sand berms - I was listening to the news and they were talking about them vs other measures and saying that sand berms may not be a good idea:

But many experts say it is not at all clear whether dredging companies could build up the barrier islands quickly enough to save the marshes. They are also concerned that the kind of sand berms envisioned in the plan might wash away quickly after a couple of storms, wasting scarce sand in the region.
​

How many days to get the ACoE to make a decision...how many? Now finally after all this time...we see government officials on site at east making an appearance....and Obama's flyover last week? Residents and business owners are still waiting for help!!!

After all this time.....

It wasn't a huge disaster at first - it developed into a huge disaster as more information become known.

Is the Obama Administration doing anything to cut through the red tape and help out the various groups?

What is the rationale for allowing BP to remain in charge?

I would be curious to hear some thoughtful, non-partisan answers to these questions.

 

[Coyote]

My point is Obama ran on a Promise of "CHANGE."

Not only didn't Salazar's appointment to Sec of Interior not effect change BEFORE April 20th, (and it still hasn't) but the very appointment of yet another Sec of DOI from a land-locked state where drilling offshore might as well be on another planet, demostrates that Obama's intent to "CHANGE" was nothing more than rhetoric.

Why does it have to be a secretary from a coast line state to qualify as "change" or be dismissed as rhetoric? How do you know there has not been any changes prior to 4/20?

You're completely right: Salazar was probably planning to investigate impropriety at DOI just before April 20, and that appointing yet another Sec of DOI from a state with no shoreline qualifies as "change."

That doesn't answer the question....

 

[Samson]

Why does it have to be a secretary from a coast line state to qualify as "change" or be dismissed as rhetoric? How do you know there has not been any changes prior to 4/20?

You're completely right: Salazar was probably planning to investigate impropriety at DOI just before April 20, and that appointing yet another Sec of DOI from a state with no shoreline qualifies as "change."

That doesn't answer the question....

I thought the questions were rhetorical.

Since 1989...TWENTY YEARS, Secs of DOI have been chosen from Colorada, New Mexico, and Idaho, and charged with the DOI mission of protecting the Resources of the USA, and you don't see that choosing yet ANOTHER DOI from Colorado is NOT CHANGE???? You don't comprehend that a Sec of DOI from a state with a coastline might be a tad more aware of issues regarding offshore drilling???

 

[Coyote]

You're completely right: Salazar was probably planning to investigate impropriety at DOI just before April 20, and that appointing yet another Sec of DOI from a state with no shoreline qualifies as "change."

That doesn't answer the question....

I thought the questions were rhetorical.

Since 1989...TWENTY YEARS, Secs of DOI have been chosen from Colorada, New Mexico, and Idaho, and charged with the DOI mission of protecting the Resources of the USA, and you don't see that choosing yet ANOTHER DOI from Colorado is NOT CHANGE????

That's still only 4 secretaries and the resources of the USA are considerably more than coastal resources. It seems to me that "change" is in policies, not in what state an appointment is chosen from.

You don't comprehend that a Sec of DOI from a state with a coastline might be a tad more aware of issues regarding offshore drilling???

I do, but guess what - offshore drilling is not the only energy initiative being overseen by the Interior.

 

[Samson]

That doesn't answer the question....

I thought the questions were rhetorical.

Since 1989...TWENTY YEARS, Secs of DOI have been chosen from Colorada, New Mexico, and Idaho, and charged with the DOI mission of protecting the Resources of the USA, and you don't see that choosing yet ANOTHER DOI from Colorado is NOT CHANGE????

That's still only 4 secretaries and the resources of the USA are considerably more than coastal resources. It seems to me that "change" is in policies, not in what state an appointment is chosen from.

You don't comprehend that a Sec of DOI from a state with a coastline might be a tad more aware of issues regarding offshore drilling???

I do, but guess what - offshore drilling is not the only energy initiative being overseen by the Interior.

Obviously, "offshore drilling is not the only energy initiative being overseen by the Interior."

However it is one of the most important. Presumably, the Obama Administration agrees, since as lately as March 30 they proposed "opening vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time."