Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 379
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 11 of 33    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)


The judge who ruled for the Corporate overlords today, did not care that they had no desire, ability, or plan to stop these egregious spills. The judge ruled in favor of corporate rule over ecosystem and human rights. No surprise that he owned stock in those he ruled in favor of..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771


By what constitutional authority does the president have to unilaterally ban offshore drilling? Who here really wants the president to have dictatorial powers in cases of national emergencies, especially when the president gets to decide what a national emergency is?
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 380
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 7:25:57 PM
"when the president gets to decide what a national emergency is?"

Well Count, I don't know about you, but I think this MAY be the national emergency of the century! Right now it will only affect 5 states, until August, when the spill should hit the gulfstream, then you can add 8 or 9 more states!

I guess raw petroleum on the shores of 13 0r 14 states might not be something to some people, but it sure seems an emergency to me.

Further he didn't "ban offshore drilling" he banned it for 6 months. That seems reasonable to give everyone a chance to review the rules under which these corporations conduct operations. Or maybe we will have another spill. Now that would be bad.
 That Handy Man
Joined: 11/23/2008
Msg: 382
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 8:37:40 PM
It's not very often I watch the news. Maybe twice a month. Tonight I did. How is it that oil that is lighter then water has rested on, and is killing all life on the ocean floor?

Once again "Unknown Country" has posted an article with the possible ramification of an extinction event having to do with trapped methane gas. They name a web site, "helium"? Haven't checked it out yet! I really can't say, we would deserve any less! As they say " If you're not part of the problem," well, you know the rest!

Never forget, the laws of unintended consequences! Wouldn't it be a wild end to human life on the planet, if they decided on a nuclear solution to the spill, and inadvertently released all that life killing methane?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 383
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 10:07:14 PM
Well Count, I don't know about you, but I think this MAY be the national emergency of the century!

???

Seriously?

You have a short memory. I'd say 9/11 was at the least, magnitudes worse than this. And within the last century, I'd count both World Wars, Black Tuesday, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and Hurricane Katrina head and shoulders above an offshore disaster. And more than that, they've had much more long-lasting historical and political ramifications than this could even potentially have.


The judge who ruled for the Corporate overlords today, did not care that they had no desire, ability, or plan to stop these egregious spills. The judge ruled in favor of corporate rule over ecosystem and human rights.

Actually, what he cared about was the overbearing, and politically driven maneuvering done by the White House in this disaster. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not necessarily a broad statement about every platform out there. Obama has been getting used to being able to dictate what is okay for everyone, and there's a few judges out there objecting. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone thinks it's a good thing to have someone just have an unarguable and totalitarian say-so over what business people can engage in without AT THE LEAST a Congressional action.


No surprise that he owned stock in those he ruled in favor of..

At least you used the past tense, because it was after all two years ago that he held any stock in the company. So, it wouldn't benefit him in any way to rule one way or the other. I have a host of energy stocks in my portfolio, too. Oh my god, I must be part of some conspiracy.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 384
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 10:21:11 PM
Countbli:
By what constitutional authority does the president have to unilaterally ban offshore drilling? Who here really wants the president to have dictatorial powers in cases of national emergencies, especially when the president gets to decide what a national emergency is?


Authority was given to the president by the CONGRESS via the ARTICLE 1 COMMERCE CLAUSE of the CONSTITUTION with their establishment of the Department of the Interior and Minerals Management Service. It is the federal government's constitutional duty to issue licenses and regulate the oil industry. Stopping drilling that is unsafe or dangerous to the environment is part of the regulatory authority the government has.

The president is the leader of bureaucratic administration... congress gives them their authority and their funding... but doesn't lead the bureaucracies...

The president has every right to stop all drilling everywhere in the country constitutionally... he's the only one who can do something like that... thats why we elect presidents and why its such a big deal when we do... because the president is a very powerful person with allot of responsibilities.

Besides that... not only is it totally in his power to do it... but its also the right things to do given the mess and all the fixing the oil companies must be forced to do... and all the changes that must be made to the bureaucracies that regulate them to boot...

pfft....

you non-scholars who taut the constitution and know nothing of it should really shut up because you only disgrace the constitution by crying chicken little
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 385
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 12:15:55 AM
Countbli



It is the federal government's constitutional duty to issue licenses and regulate the oil industry

There is absolutely no authority listed within the United States constitution that grants the FEDERAL government the authority to issue these kinds of licences. None whatsoever.

And the 10th amendment makes it absolutely clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Constitutionally, the Gulf of Mexico owned by the Federal government ought to be owned by the states or by private individuals.

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"






The president has every right to stop all drilling everywhere in the country constitutionally

The executive branch has the right to enforce laws and command the military. It does not have the right to control private property.






Besides that... not only is it totally in his power to do it... but its also the right things to do given the mess and all the fixing the oil companies must be forced to do... and all the changes that must be made to the bureaucracies that regulate them to boot...

When will people realize that it isn't the people inside the system that are the problem or the specific nuances of the structure of the system that is the problem, but rather that the system itself is what's wrong? That the regulatory state itself - not the people within it - provides enormous incentives for special interests to lobby government and command regulatory agencies. That these agencies never have and give us no reason to believe that they will ever "contain the corporations". That from the very beginning of the rise of the regulatory state, these government interventions into the economy have been had by industrialists. Regulations do not possess the power to control the private sector - they only hand the power to it on a silver platter.

The outcomes we all desire the most arise out of private and local ownership of land, capital, and other forms of property. The outcomes we least desire arise from central government planning and controlling of land, capital, and other forms of property.

The SYSTEM needs to be changed if we want meaningful improvement. How many decades has your generation wasted trying desperately to vote for the "right" candidates to fix the problem or to impose the "right" regulatory controls? Do you have any idea how enormous our regulatory code is? They add tens of thousands of pages to it every year. And every year, everything only gets worse. This is, literally, insane behavior.

This country, I swear to god, is going down the sh*thole. Ron-Paul 2012 or Singapore, here I come.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 386
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 11:42:26 AM
The above post was addressed to merelymortal. My mistake.

I'm almost embarassed by how emotionally-charged my post's ending was
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 387
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 1:32:12 PM

When will people realize that it isn't the people inside the system that are the problem or the specific nuances of the structure of the system that is the problem, but rather that the system itself is what's wrong?


BINGO!!! Well put Ubi.

The next question should logically be "What can be done to improve the system and ensure that such disasters never happen again?"

May I suggest that the thing that restrains most of us from acting imprudently is our FULL LIABILITY for our actions. The limited liability of corporations dangerously skews the risk/benefit ratio and allows corporations to act recklessly in the pursuit of profit. I suspect that if investors were liable to the full extent of their personal wealth, instead of only to the extent of their shares, corporations would have to have a record of prudence to attract investors. Knowing that, boards (which could be held criminally liable as a single entity) would stop acting like crooked & reckless cowboys and start acting like responsible people.

I suspect that simply putting an end (globally) to limited liability could be one simple act of legislation that could have world-changing implications. Just imagineā€¦corporate giants, held to the same standard of responsibility & accountability for their actions as people are.

The arguments that I've seen regarding full liability for corporations have always been financial ones (bond prices vs equities, etc.). They never bring up the moral argument, which could transform corporate philosophy overnight and make this world a MUCH better place to live in.

Tell your legislators to END LIMITED LIABILITY.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 388
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 1:41:06 PM
Yes, your plan would limit economic incentive for those things. And all other things.

In fact, your plan would end economic activity... pretty much altogether. Personally, I like having a job. And food to put on the table. And TV to watch. Perhaps you don't, but I like these things and would prefer to keep them. Therefore, I will not be telling my legislators anything of the sort.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 389
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 2:14:03 PM

In fact, your plan would end economic activity

How could it? Are you suggesting there was no economic activity before limited liability was invented? What makes you think that an entity's actually being responsible for its actions is a bad thing? Do you really think corporations would cease to exist without limited liability? (Why do so many fully liable proprietorships flourish?)

In the face of full liability, outfits like BP would have learned their lesson well in Alaska in 2007, when they were responsible for the worst spill since the Exxon Valdez. After that little faux pas, if they still existed, they would have learned the lesson well enough that we wouldn't be talking today about the mess in the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't kid yourself. Even in the face of full liability, corporations will continue to exist and do business. The only difference will be lower profits owing to more money spent on things like safety without the need of government regulation to compel some modicum of moral behaviour.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 390
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 2:51:18 PM

your plan [dukky's] would limit economic incentive for those things

Are you saying unlimited liability would make people less greedy? Of course not.

People would be just as greedy as before. Thus they would be just as interested in engaging in economic activities. The difference would be that in an economic environment where certain individuals cannot externalize costs onto other people (legally), the greediest thing to do would be to engage in those activities that are less risky and/or to hedge against the risks of risky activities by investing in protective equipment, processes, insurances, etc.

There's nothing profitable about subjecting yourself to extreme risks. The only time it is profitable is when the state doesn't allow the market to impose the costs of risk accidents onto the risk taker. This is exactly what's happening today. Governments grant certain people the charters to engage in risky activity using public land and government licences. And when these activities lead to disasters, as they tend to do when these activities are not accountable to market forces, the state's courts & police refuse to allow the victims to reclaim damages to their property.

This is a blatant violation of what is described as a free market. This is fascism: state sponsorship and partnership of private enterprise.



I will say that what I believe introducing unlimited liability for people (remember, "corporations" are just groups of people) will be an extremely good thing for the environment, the economy, and would promote a freer market, I believe as a matter of political science it will be impossible to introduce anytime soon for a variety of reasons. It is important to keep these ideas alive in the public psyche, but calling for them (now) is counter-productive in my opinion.

The path to freedom is one that must be taken in steps. Else we will fall along that path. The ideas of limited government power and control over the economy are alive and well in the political arena. The less we focus on those and the more we focus on the end ideals, the less successful we will be imo.



(So happy to see you back, Dukky )
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 391
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 3:39:40 PM
The idea of investors investing their entire fortunes into an undertaking just by buying a few shares is absurd. Any kind of plan that would mean that would mean that there is not "I'm investing 1,000", because you are inherently investing everything you have, because you are liable to lose everything you have.

This means no investments. And with no investments means no capital for creation of wealth. Perhaps he misspoke and didn't actually mean that he would want to subject shareholders to the full extent of a company's liability should something go wrong, but it is what it appeared he was saying. Which yes, would kill any economic activity.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 392
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 7:41:53 PM


Authority was given to the president by the CONGRESS via the ARTICLE 1 COMMERCE CLAUSE of the CONSTITUTION with their establishment of the Department of the Interior and Minerals Management Service.


Sorry, but that's wrong. Congress cannot cede it's authority to regulate interstate commerce to the president. The president, at best, can only enforce the laws that Congress passes.



The president is the leader of bureaucratic administration... congress gives them their authority and their funding... but doesn't lead the bureaucracies...


Article 2 Section 2 gives him the authority to appoint heads of departments. It does not give him the authority to tell them what to do or make law that they have to enforce.



The president has every right to stop all drilling everywhere in the country constitutionally... he's the only one who can do something like that... thats why we elect presidents and why its such a big deal when we do... because the president is a very powerful person with allot of responsibilities.


He has a few, very specific, responsibilities. Basically he's the commander in chief of the military, makes certain governmental appointments, signs bills into law or vetos them, and makes treaties.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 393
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 7:45:54 PM


In fact, your plan would end economic activity... pretty much altogether.


Uh, so you're saying that every buisiness in this country is a corporation? Patently untrue. Ending limited liability will go a long way towards bringing the US to a free market economy instead of the corporatocracy we have now.
 That Handy Man
Joined: 11/23/2008
Msg: 394
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 7:50:03 PM
You people can go on bickering and arguing about economics.

It's the behavior of the human animal that will lead to his demise and ultimate extinction.

Probably not a bad thing! Give the Earth a few million years to recover in peace!
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 395
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/23/2010 10:35:35 PM

Article 2 Section 2 gives him the authority to appoint heads of departments. It does not give him the authority to tell them what to do or make law that they have to enforce.


Obviously, you aren't informed about how bureaucracy works, or human nature...

If someone serves "at the pleasure of the president"... if he can dismiss them... fire them... then they work for him... he is the boss of the bureaucracies... or "government corporations"... he's kind of like the CEO of them all... they aren't really an independent branch of government...

Congress merely controls them with the power of the purse... and by legislating... they say what to do... but not how to do it... the president does that
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 399
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/24/2010 11:16:00 AM


Obviously, you aren't informed about how bureaucracy works, or human nature...


I know how it "works" but that has nothing to do with how the Constitution says it legally works.



If someone serves "at the pleasure of the president"... if he can dismiss them... fire them... then they work for him... he is the boss of the bureaucracies... or "government corporations"... he's kind of like the CEO of them all... they aren't really an independent branch of government...


They don't serve at the pleasure of the president. I don't see where the president gets the power to fire any of his appointments. But maybe I missed it; could you point me to the relevant section of the Constitution?



Congress merely controls them with the power of the purse... and by legislating... they say what to do... but not how to do it... the president does that


This is a fair point. The president may say how to do it, but he can't say what to do. That means the president does not have the legal authority to ban offshore drilling.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 401
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/24/2010 4:18:15 PM
Is there any driller here?
.....
If the mud inside the hole is preventing it then how is the mud removed with the christmas tree still in place?

If the top strata of the well is drilled into unconsolidated mud, silt, sandstone what keeps the christmas tree from being pushed out of the hole pulling the steel lining with it?

is here a site which I can go to to understand the problem?

Try this: http://www.northernoil.com/drilling.php

Buddy sent that to me a while ago. Shows the basics.


The corporations and the govt. are all busy talking MONEY...the ocean can't be BOUGHT with meaningless green pieces of paper!!!!

You're one of those people that doesn't actually understand what money is. Money is just the abstract way of budgeting the finite man-hours and equipment we can use to clean up the mess. Talking about money is a critical part of this, because that finite amount of money that exists in the sector represents the equipment and people that can be deployed to fix the problem.


Uh, so you're saying that every buisiness in this country is a corporation? Patently untrue. Ending limited liability will go a long way towards bringing the US to a free market economy instead of the corporatocracy we have now.

I didn't say that; however, I'd wager that at least 99.9% of the businesses in this country have at the least registered themselves as either an LLC or S-Corp. It's the foundation of the free market we have in the United States. Separating business from the person allows for joint ownership in business and clarity in how taxes are calculated. If I buy 100 shares of BP, I shouldn't be on the hook for my entire livelihood, annual salary, and retirement savings if they screw up. That is a critical part of maintaining the market. It means I'm invested for the share that I bought in for. I'm liable to lose all 100 of those shares, but not my house.


I haven't read the actual text of the opinion, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm relying at this point on secondary information.

No, you've pretty much got it right. It was actually in essence that the Obama administration didn't have the say-so to shut down an entire industry without a good justification. If they can provide a good justification, showing that there is an imminent threat of another spill (I'm not sure how they can do this; perhaps they'll have a more lenient set of requirements), then the moratorium can stand.

I don't understand why people are upset about this. This is our system working as it should. One person shouldn't be able to shut down an entire industry on a whim without at least running it through another branch. This isn't a dictatorship. Especially an elected official acting on populist and emotionally charged knee-jerk reactions. Congressional action would be a little better, but an executive order reviewed by a judicial process is pretty good, too.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 402
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/24/2010 5:42:28 PM
The implications of this spill are huge
One thing I haven't seen discussed is the effect that a carpet of oil on such a large area of ocean will have , in that it will stop the water evaporating.
How will this effect the weather?
Just as well climate change doesnt exist, or so Ive been told
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 403
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/24/2010 5:52:15 PM

I do understand that aspect of why money is being discussed...but my point focuses on the larger picture I believe.

NO amount of money or man hours can undo what's been done. I've been reading that even if the massive leak is stopped right now, it will be 100+ years before recovery is seen....by then, all of us debating here will be dead.

It's fantastic that those in charge are trying to *fix* this, but I think it's just as important to look at how we got into this mess to begin with. There is no other environmental catastrophe in our history that can compare to what has happened.

I'm very afraid that we truly have NO clue what we're in store for. All this debating, and *fixing*, and rationalizing only offers a false illusion of control, in my opinion....debating or defending various points of view will not reverse this atrocity against our world.

This is the first time in my life that I've been afraid to live in these times, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

I may see things differently from you...but I can assure you, we want the same things and we are truly all in this one together.

Fair enough. I suppose I pigeonholed you based on so many other posts that I thought sounded like yours.
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 405
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 3:00:15 AM
The more I think about things, the stronger this feeling in my gut says that this is the first real step on the road to human extinction.

I wonder just how many other species we will take down with us.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 406
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 5:52:15 AM
I wonder just how many other species we will take down with us.


A lot, whether you're correct or not. We're quite adaptable and tenacious, as
evidenced by our ability to establish and maintain populations all over the
globe regardless of conditions. Many other species are nowhere near as versatile.

Barring a devastating epidemic or calamity on a scale that would wipe out all
mammals, we'll likely survive, albeit with a vastly decreased overall quality of life.

It's our unique ability to adapt and even thrive in the face of challenges that
has allowed us to evolve so quickly to such a dominant position on the planet,
with the unfortunate side effect that we've also developed callous disregard for
the implications for the other life processes on the planet that sustain us.

We tend to think we'll always be able to invent something to overcome
whatever destruction we create, that our current superior position as a species
means we needn't concern ourselves with our environmental impacts.

My take is that extinction of humans is unlikely or at least a long, long way off,
but that we may well have peaked in terms of our overall quality of life, at
least in this cycle.

I remain hopeful that our large brains will ultimately grasp the importance of
responsible stewardship that comes with dominance, but I think we'll need a lot
more direct suffering to bring that lesson home.

Last century may well turn out to be the one where we experienced the
greatest technological and economic growth we'll ever see. This century may
well turn out to be the one where we learn the most hard life lessons.

That will require significant pain and loss to bring those lessons home, with the
gulf perhaps the first of a series of of unexpected but quite logical setbacks,
given our current practices.

I wrote a piece several years ago proposing that if one were to compare our
species development to a single human lifespan, we're just now starting to
emerge from our teenage years, just now starting to grasp that we can't expect
to keep doing everything to excess without suffering consequences. It's time to
grow up as a species and start acting more responsibly.

I retain hope that we'll indeed learn those lessons and apply our adaptability in
a positive way, leaving not just us but the planet better off on the other side of
this difficult course of study, but even if that's the case I think things will have
to get a lot worse before they get better.

The alternative is that we'll just be among the last standing as the planet
transforms into something like the other planets in the solar system. I hope
that's not the case, but it's certainly possible.

Dave
 _Icon_
Joined: 5/18/2008
Msg: 407
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 6:07:19 AM
I dont know Dave.

How long can we last when the oceans die? It seems to me that time is closer than we think.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 408
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 6:38:11 AM
^^^ Relax
Do what you can
Observe the rest

Remember to shift your focus from time to time
Don't let your imaginings to run away with you
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 409
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/25/2010 7:11:24 AM
No, don't relax, but don't give up either.

It will take a lot more than the gulf disaster for the oceans to die, but there are plenty of signs our oceans are certainly not well. Increased acidity threatening shellfish, bits of plastic threatening most everything else, overfishing, a wide range of toxins, etc...

Nature as a whole is incredibly resilient. One of my means of employment is serving as a whitewater raft guide on the New River here in WV. Pictures from a century ago show the New River Gorge totally devoid of trees, with a black haze hanging over everything from the hundreds of coke ovens that processed the coal mined there. Today the same area is a lush hardwood forest that I recently learned is the most diverse ecosystem in the entire national park system.

That's no excuse for continued environmental abuses, but it is a sign that if we just stop the destruction and give nature a chance to regroup, things may not be as dire as we fear. But first we do need to stop destroying and give nature that chance.

As I've noted before, ultimately the planet will win. It's up to us whether we want to play on the winning team.

Dave
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >