BP Oil Spill

[Dylflon]

I heard a Louisiana judge overturned Obama's decision to put a moratorium on off shore drilling over 500 feet deep...

Apparently this judge has investments in the oil industry.


Question:

Why does this judge still have his job? Start taking names, Obama.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I heard a Louisiana judge overturned Obama's decision to put a moratorium on off shore drilling over 500 feet deep...

Apparently this judge has investments in the oil industry.


Question:

Why does this judge still have his job? Start taking names, Obama.

If you have a 401k, a money market fund, IRA or any other equity based investment you probably have investments in the oil industry too. Does that make you corrupt? No. It means nothing. Actions and evidence matters, not correlative "evidence" based on emotion. Hell, Obama took a lot of campaign funds from BP. Does that make his response corrupt? Or just inept?

The question is whether or not the executive branch has the authority to call a moratorium on oil drilling. I don't know he answer to that, but we'll never know until we start asking the right questions.

Whether or not the judge has oil investments is not the right question.

[Typhoid]

Does that make you corrupt? No.

However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.

I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.

I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.

And besides the fact that some level of his portfolio has oil investment in it, as does every form of collective equity investment to be honest, what leads you to believe he "threw the game"? I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the majority of my argument where I covered Dyflon's points you just repeated in story form.

Again, you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not the decision was legally sound. If it wasn't, then maybe you have a point. If it was, you don't. But until we answer that question, making accusations about the judge's motivation is pointless.

While we are here, why not discuss the logic of the moratorium in the first place? While this accident was horrible, it is also exceedingly rare. Does it make sense to put all of these people out of work, and tie up millions in funds, to suspend an activity that the overwhelming evidence suggests is more than reasonably safe? There are nearly 4,000 oil rigs in the gulf alone, and this is the first disaster in how long?

Calling a moratorium on all oil rig exploration based on one accident on one rig by one company is absurd, especially considering how stellar the safety records of the other oil companies have been. Its the equivalent of recalling all cars produced in the 70's because the Ford Pinto blew up. Its a political move, meant to placate the anger of the masses, not a policy based on reason.

[Dylflon]

Yeah, a large part of Louisiana is pretty much ruined, but oil spills seriously almost never happen!

When a Pinto explodes it doesn't devastate an entire region's wild/ocean life and harm local business.


And yes, oil workers are going to have to lose jobs. Be it through a moratorium or for our eventual need to get off of oil.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Yeah, a large part of Louisiana is pretty much ruined, but oil spills seriously almost never happen!

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are actually correct. Are you only right when you don't mean to be? J/K

When a Pinto explodes it doesn't devastate an entire region's wild/ocean life and harm local business.

No, but the Pinto killed over two times as many people (27). And again, we know the comparable safety records of the oil companies on deep water rigs. BP's record was horrific, but but the other companies have great records. There is no reason to believe this will happen again any time in the next 40 years.

I mean, it sure does SOUND like Pres. Obama is doing something when he calls for a moratorium... and I guess that makes good press. The reality is all he's doing is hurting good people.

And yes, oil workers are going to have to lose jobs. Be it through a moratorium or for our eventual need to get off of oil.

There is a difference between gradually moving off of oil and naturally transferring employment from one sector to another and immediately putting people out of work.

If the goal is to "get us off oil", a moratorium is probably the dumbest method one could choose, but again, it sounds good. I guess that's all that matters?

[Dylflon]

Maybe emotion dictates what I want to see.

I see things like this and I want something to happen. I feel in a world where we're all supposed to logical and all supposed to care (which I understand is a fantasy) , I want somebody to say "Hey this is bullshit, we need to change the way we do things".

I will admit, I know next to nothing about oil drilling. I do know that it does create horrible environmental disasters upon occasion such as in the gulf and in the tar sands and rivers of Alberta.

It's just frustrating to hear, especially from people like you who I believe to be people of reason (though we seldom see eye to eye), that the best thing to do is nothing. We pay our dues and get back to business in the interest of people not having to switch careers. It's this kind of pro status quo attitude that I feel gets us into trouble a lot as a species but specifically as North Americans.

I bet even if the disaster was twice as bad as it already is, no more would get done than is getting done now. We can't even regulate this shit anymore. I suppose what we need to happen is have Obama say that we're off oil within the next five years and sink some of that military budget into alternate energy.

I haven't read the thread thoroughly yet, so you might have a sweet argument or your argument may be "we need to be slightly more careful". Either way, I doubt it will be enough for me to stop being wildly upset over this whole catastrophe and in need of some action to be taken that limits what oil barons are allowed to do.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The question is whether or not the executive branch has the authority to call a moratorium on oil drilling. I don't know he answer to that, but we'll never know until we start asking the right questions.

Beck knows good and well the answer to that question. The real question is, why was it allowed before, and why isn't it being allowed now. And what Dyflon posted is likely part of that answer.