White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report 368
bonch writes "The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report by reordering paragraphs to make it appear as though a seven-member panel of independent experts supported the six-month ban on offshore drilling. The IG report states, 'The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,' but the panel had only reviewed a draft of safety recommendations and not a drilling ban. The White House has issued a statement saying that there was 'no intentional misrepresentation of their views.' This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."
I hope you like your change. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing really ever changes.
Re: (Score:2)
This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry. That's a somewhat refreshing change... or would be if the effect of the report was something more than uniting the oil lobby and republican partisans. And I suspect that unlike the the last administration's report diddling, I get the feeling that this is actually going to backfire on the current administration. That's change.
Democrats: we may not be any more honest, but we screw up so spectacularly when we lie that it's -almost-
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely. I'm a Tea Partier, more or less, but one who believes we are wasting our time with the GOP. It can't be salvaged. We're better off making a fresh start with a new party and forming alliances with other fiscally conservative individuals or groups. I don't mind if they are socially liberal or whatever; sound economic policy and maximum liberty are what matter.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of (libertarianism is NOT about "anything goes" despite what many claim). However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents. Unfortunately that is usually the GOP, which at this point may as well merge with the Democratic party and name the newly formed party "Republicrat."
What we need is more people like Ron and Rand Paul i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people, who through no fault of their own, get cancer? Who is supposed to pay for that? All these behavioral-based health issues are largely strawmen. The fact is there are a lot of very sick people, and the sickest with least probability of return on productivity are the most expensive to fix. So no matter how you slice it, either we have to get together and share the pain of these individuals or we have to just let them die.
I'm not discounting fraud as a method to reduce cost, but I gua
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope you like your change. (Score:5, Insightful)
How did it get to be such a perversion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck no, they would probably try them as traitors. Consider the royalist overtones of them advocating "small government" of a few with no checks and balances but close to absolute power. Listen to what is actually being said by people that call themselves "libertarians" at "tea parties" instead of what you think they stood for in 1970.
Half the time it's advocating feudalism with the extremely rich as
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey... I read plenty to my kids. I read them this great story about a blood elf mage that just totally pwned that dwarf warrior. It was sweet.
It was just really hard to tell the kids what that dwarf was saying... But it was so epic.
Re:I hope you like your change. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy."
So your argument can be boiled down to: "It's too hard for me to spend 10-20 minutes preparing meals that dont even need refrigeration or cooking that I can easily carry with me and eat throughout the day. Especially considering that doing so would save me money. I'm so fucking lazy that I need the government to force private business to give me healthy fast food so that I can be healthy while being lazy... "
EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About it!
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Cue CSI: Miami intro?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, just like sports fans. Or religious zealots. Wait a second, could there possibly be a connection?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they're all idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is-- Is the GP wrong, or was it that nobody wanted to admit to it? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
they are different repubs would have spun this to be we need to drill more, not ban it.
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions. Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.
Not forgivable, no. But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either, which is what tends to happen. Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen. We'll keep bouncing from one set of crooks to another. Unfortunately, the ones who have to make those reforms are the ones that benefit the most from the status quo.
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The election system is not the biggest issue. Washington has a tendency to corrupt just about everyone who goes there, even people with the best intentions. (Election reform is also damn near impossible in the current environment.)
What is needed is the watchful eye and the accusing mouth of the public. Public pressure works better than anything else. Fortunately, the excesses of the Bush administration were obvious enough to get people to pay attention, which is why you see so much talk about the (often
Re: (Score:2)
Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen.
Yes, because reforms to our election system will make people care about politics more than the NFL, Nascar, American Idol, the WWF, and Jesus. Cure stupid and you can reform our election system AND our government.
It's still the US government no matter who runs it (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right - it never happened!
When are you guys going to wake up that you are not led by a magic nigger that you must all either love or hate on racial grounds and instead by a real human being that is a Chicago lawyer trying to do the best he can. McCain would have done ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?
As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yellowcake
It started a war that killed 10s of thousands and crippled many Americans.
Yes, because if he had taken office and yanked them out the next day you would hold him faultless. You would have been 100% behind that as two nations crumbled
Here is some personal responsibility for you. You voted these assholes into office, you pay for their wars. Moreover, you send YOUR sons to die for this bullshit.
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right?
They appear to be similar magnitude to me. Let's count the ways that I hate BOTH the republicans and democrats
- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom
- Republicans - passed the damnable Patriot Act
- Democrats - passed the Patriot Renewal Act when they should have killed it
- Republicans - started a damn war
- Democrats - won congress and could have ended the war, but instead expanded its scope
- Republicans - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by Katrina
- Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill
- Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas
- Republicans - Won back the house, and now they want to go to war against Iran (rumor)
Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always vote for a third party and waste your vote!
God, I love first past the post...
Re: (Score:2)
A vote is only wasted if it is for something you don't want.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]
;)
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:5, Interesting)
...despite 70% opposition by Americans
Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.
Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.
I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a point there, but I don't think the majority who didn't vote can safely be put into the "not fools" category.
Opposition by majority of americans != right (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sure majority of American voters (of the time) would have opposed civil rights law or abolishing slavery or vote/equality for women.
That is why referendum on every major decision is a bad idea.
You vote for what you think is the best leaders and let them make decision popular or unpopular and kick them out if you want
later...i think that is better than making decision by popular acceptance which would mean daily electioneering already its terrible every 2 years.
Run for power if you think you'd do a b
I'll give ya half credit (Score:5, Informative)
I'm mostly okay with what you're saying, maybe not to the degree you are taking it, but largely I would agree. Save for one point:
- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom
The "no person shall be turned down" policy of 1997 only effected a very specific subset of banks. Specifically, of the top 20 sub prime mortgage lenders in the build up to the 2008 blow out, 2 we under the regulations applied by that law. And they were (IIRC) 18th and 20th for the total amount of money lent to sub-prime loans.
No, the underlying cause of the housing bubble is a standard free-market behavior couple with greedy people willing to lie. You had a whole lot of upper-middle and upper class individuals with money to invest. They gave their money to investment firms (and banks, which after the repeal of the GS act, could behave like investment firms). These investment companies had too much liquidity, too much money in the pocket, and not enough out in the market earning interest. So they pushed for more loans. Business loans, construction loans, home loans, personal loans, etc...
Well then it becomes a supply and demand issue. There are a finite number of "good bets" on the market at any given time. And with the excess liquidity in the credit market, all those were snatched up first. From there, we had loads of "pretty good bets". And those too got snatched up.
Then we started getting into the "completely crap bets." Ideally, there shouldn't be enough liquidity in the credit market that these loans are ever going through. But between the huge amount of demand for investments, and the completely bogus CDL vehicles misrepresenting the risk, they were selling like hot cakes.
Now, had the GS Act still been in place, all of this would have happened to investment firms, which should have known better, should have protected there investments, and if they neglected the signs, gone bankrupt. The problem though, is that banks were in on the deals. And when a bank loses hard like this they have insurance through AIG and if things get bad enough, FDIC. And that's when everything went to crap.
So yeah, the dismantling of GS opened the tax payers and economy to this risk, but it wasn't the cause. Nor was Clinton's affordable housing initiative.
The underlying cause is the exact same thing that lead up to the great depression: The excessive consolidation of wealth. I'm not a bleeding heart commie, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when we have too much money in too few of hands, the economy suffers significantly.
Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm with you on everything except Katrina. That was a State level issue and the Governor and Mayor of New Orleans were responsible for dealing with it - after they proved utterly incompetent, they tried to claim it was a Federal issue (when no hurricane has ever been labeled as such) in order to shift the blame to someone else.
Sorry, but even if it's someone I dislike (such as Bush) I hate when people blame them for something that was not their fault in any way.
Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Preventing a depression? All I see is delaying.
Re: (Score:2)
anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.
The trouble with this particular argument is it's impossible to prove false. It's like proving there is no God. Meanwhile we are deeper in debt than at any point in our nation's entire history, other countries are so leery of investing in the US that the US government is being forced to monetize more than half a trillion dollars, and we're still at just barely under 10% unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate has sat unchanged since May. Big freaking improvement.
The economy hasn't met any of the ex
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. People who claim that TARP and the stimulus had a positive or negative effect are mostly doing so based upon their political affiliation.
The fact that we had to sell our souls to have any effect whatsoever is why we're damned.
Why is this on slashdot? (Score:2)
I'll take my nerd news without polotics thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo,
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that /.'s comment system means that there will actually be some decent discussion of the issue. It's far from perfect, but it's the best I've encountered, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to read and take part in it. If you don't like it, you can always hide the section. I'm not trying to be adversarial; there's just really no other way to suggest that.
Damn you George Bushitler!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......
Never mind.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......
Never mind.
It's Clinton's fault! God! Some people are just so clueless.
Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!
Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!
Damn straight - we'd have a woman to clean it up for us!
Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (Score:5, Funny)
"Wait a sec.....wrong administration......."
I'll just leave this here:
http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg [tinypic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That middle picture is creepy.
Would that be Georack Obamush?
Politicians Lie (Score:4, Funny)
Film at 11:00pm
Obama lied, fish died.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a serious breach of trust regarding the policy used to CLEAN UP THE GOPs MESS>
Still bad, I still am just as pissed off about this as I would be with GWB if he'd done it (which I'm pretty sure he did fudge facts on a legion of issues).
But Obama in no way caused the oil disaster. Well one *possible* avenue of responsibility stems from the Sec of Interior he chose, but that's so far down the list of directly attributable c
Re: (Score:2)
People at the Aspirin Factory would beg to differ.
What? you actually believe it wasn't about getting the fat school girl's blue dress off the front page?
Most transparent administration ever! (Score:4, Funny)
Even their lies are obvious!
Unintentional? (Score:2)
Yes, because the White House assigns stuff like this to their interns, and doesn't employ squadrons of people who are masters at wordsmithing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
This was actually reported ~4 months ago, when the oil spill was still happening, and one of the White House staff admitted they didn't like the recommendations so they "massaged" it to provide the answer they wanted. They then apologized for it. Kinda similar to how Cigarette companies produce studies showing smoking is good for you.
Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was there really any doubt that the ban was a purely political decision in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
I foolishly doubted it.
Personally, until they can demonstrate the ability to control this kind of well in a timely manner why should they be allowed to drill?
To me it seems like legalizing drunk driving.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s
We'd still be in the same spot, because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does. For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.
The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.
That implies we could have developed better more efficient means than we currently have, possibly solar that uses more of the spectrum, or more portable options that could replace gas/diesel fuels. Your assumption that we would still be at the current level of R&D is flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got one word for you:
Nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
So pave over Nevada and Arizona. Then use the spare power to crack water to get Hydrogen and make our own hydrocarbons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or, we could have, you know-- tapped hydroelectric power in Colorado (LOTS of mountain streams before it reaches the major river systems), and wind energy here in Kansas-- (the average windspeed year-round is 12mph, with windy days constituting more than 2/3. This is more than enough to harvest sizable quantities of "green" energy.)
The major falacy with "Alternative energy wont work! (cites energy density VS hydrocarbons)" is that it makes at least 3 assumptions, almost all of the time:
1) Only one kind of a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) A favorite is Solar, due to its abysmal energy conversion efficiency.
Solar's energy conversion efficiency is low, but this really isn't relevant. Most solar panels are about 20% efficient. When you ask about the efficiency of a system, you have to ask what the total course of the system is, from sunlight to wheels/house power/chemical production. What this basically means is the total land area needed to sustain a person. If that land area is too big, that's no good. If a system has 1% efficiency but ends up not requiring
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This actually isn't true. The electrical grid, as wires, is about 95% efficient. However, the power plants aren't very efficient, ranging from 30% to 60%. This is because of the Carnot limits that impact the conversion of heat to work in a heat engine.
Modern thermal power stations are large and run very hot and have many stages to recover energy from the heat precisely to deal with these things (running hotter increases the theoretical max, being larger and having more turbines in series increases the actual amount of energy extracted). In this, they are much more efficient than a small power plant such as a combustion engine. Once you've converted into electrical energy, you can't use Carnot-style calculations to do the calculation (you've not a thermal
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.
Nonsense. If we switched to solar PV, we'd need roughly 70,000 km^2 of panels. That's based on US energy consumption, taking in to account clouds, day/night, all the stuff solar deniers like to pretend is an issue. Now, 70,000 km^2 sounds like a lot, but it really is about 270 km on a side. Convert that to miles, get 165 miles on a side. Big, but not as big as Nevada. Expensive as hell, sure. But not too big.
Now of course, we could build those cells on our roofs, and cut that by a major number.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why places like Schleswig-Holstein [wikipedia.org], at 5% of the size of Nevada, have active plans to satisfy the entire electric energy demand of their entire population through wind power by 2020. Yes, that doesn't yet power cars, but that's just wind power as well.
Alternative energy isn't just one form, it's a combination of them all. And fuck the "it doesn't satisfy 120% of our demand" attitude. Do you always wait until you have a perfect and complete solution before you start implementing it?
If we had pushed stronger for alternative energy in the 70s, our use of oil and coal today would be considerably less than it is, which means we would require less, which means prices would be lower, less dangerous fields would be exploited and we'd have shifted peak oil out a decade or two. Heck, we may have even fought a war or two less over it. Yes, we likely wouldn't be living in Hippie paradise. But we would be having more alternatives, more options, and likely a better world.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative energy will go forward from high cost applications at the margins, driven by higher oil and gas prices. Not some magic Federal program.
Last time, in the 1970-80s energy crunch, we had that Carl Sagan moment, "billions and billions", for nothing but expensive, abandoned coal liquification plants of the federal Synfuels corp.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was a Exxon incident you could have just as easily said Exxon did it AGAIN, same goes for shell, or any other BIG ENERGY company, their all horribly irresponsible, and more worried about their bottom line's and how well they do on the stock markets and how big of a bonus their CEO gets than they are about the enviroment, peoples lives, or well... anything. Bottom line is, big energy is king, and the king is only concerned with how much money he can make, not with the state of his kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
One more level of abstraction ... (Score:4, Funny)
The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report ...
So now we're getting a report about a report. That's just grand. I personally am waiting for the report about the report about the report. Add a few more levels of abstraction, and we will all forget what the original issue was anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just issued it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even better, the summary is of the news report.
So now I'm commenting on your comment of the comment to the summary of the reports about the report about the report!
Where did all the oil go anyway?
Intern (Score:5, Insightful)
A few months later, a report about the report reveals the tampering, the public becomes outraged, Obama has to answer for it all, and the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked, perhaps,even developing a nasty cocaine addiction in the process....
Either that or the politico douchebags in the white-house just fucked everyone over again out of sheer boredom.
Either way, it's times like this that make me proud I went to school to become an engineer, rather than getting muddled about in that dark world of hurt that is politics!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anybody got a diff? (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
Who needs proof when they have a hot air balloon?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we don't even have a diff
'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?
The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.
Re:Anybody got a diff? (Score:4, Insightful)
'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?
I don't think you know what a "fact" is.
A fact would be the two versions, side by side.
And inference or a conclusion would be why it was done and what effect it had. Not the same as a fact.
I can't think of a single reasonable reason why you wouldn't want to see the two versions published. You might be right that this was shady business, but if you are, the actual evidence would support your case so let's get it out there.
The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.
You've offered zero evidence of this. Proof by strident claim isn't proof, it's pundit hocus-pocus. Please stick with the facts. (But first, learn what that term means.)
Re:Anybody got a diff? (Score:4, Informative)
It's a shame really. It could be so clear. Every comment about the moratorium starts off with "The Secretary recommends..." where as all of the peer reviewed stuff starts off with "The Report recommends..."
The problem though, is the word "This". A paragraph immediately following one of the paragraphs that states "The Secretary recommends ... a 6 month moratorium ... " starts off with the following:
The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts
identified by the National Academy of Engineering.
The "this" in that sentence is suppose to be referencing the report that the peer-review group passed. But since the paragraphs have been re-ordered, it appears to reference the report that we are currently reading. And thus implying that the Secretary's recommendations have been peer reviewed.
-Rick
policy guided by science and not ideology (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunno, when the largest oil blowout (it was not a spill!) happens, most people would think it prudent to stop and check all other similar endeavors. Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.
Though the real question is why you can drill in the US waters without a cement-clad drill hole and a ready-made emergency sarcophagus already in place before you even start drilling. We have those requirements in Europe and people still make gobs of money with oil.
Re: (Score:2)
The scientists didn't think it prudent, and when asked about it after the fact said they definitely would not have recommended it.
It makes sense, too.
If you just had a oil well explode in a failed capping operation, what kind of idiot would order 60 more just like it, just in case it happens again? That's like accidentally cutting your finger off with a butcher knife, and then seeing if you can miss each of your other 9 fingers, just in case.
I'll tell you what kind of idiot would do that: someone more conc
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason why the fucking American companies build that shit over here:
They are doing the absolute bare minimum they can get by with. Obvious? Yes.
Edited (Score:2)
The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs
Re: (Score:2)
The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs
That is classified.
Signed,
Your perpetually non-transparent government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it's not LaTEX. I'd like to be wrong.
Wait a minute! (Score:2, Troll)
You mean to tell us that President Chocolate Jesus's administration is no more ethical than the previous one?
What about all of that "The previous 8 years." stuff they they kept talking about?
The only news here is that some people are naive enough to believe that dishonesty is owned exclusively by one party.
LK
Re:Wait a minute! (Score:4, Insightful)
I am so terribly sorry, you were looking for the racism thread. Despite you low ID number I feel that I must tell you that here on Slashdot we don't really go in for the whole "Negro Bashing" thing. It might have been different when you started, and I really don't think it was, but now a days we don't actually bother with people's color because, well it has nothing to do with anything.
To help you understand my message I will use prejudicial terms so you can understand.
I know Kikes that are poor, Spics that dont pick fruit, Niggers that suck at sports and Faggots that don't like show tunes. See? Prejudice sucks - it doesn't help anyone at all.
Interestingly though - I now know someone that thinks 'Chocolate' is a special word for people who have dark skin. And I guess I also know someone that thinks the President is the Messiah. No one in the Theological world ever thought he was the Second Coming.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Communists and Corporatists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. You need to start taking your meds.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with Pre
Re:Where's Kanye? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the blame be placed on the Governor?
After all he's the one who, when Bush called to send troops to help, refused to allow them entrance: "It's okay. Louisiana can handle this alone." A president is powerful, but per the constitution still not allowed to overrule a Governor during peacetime. I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.
Uh, no it isn't.
The EU president doesn't even have any troops to send. In fact, there is no such thing as "the EU president". Wikipedia:
President of the European Union (or President of Europe) could be an incorrect reference to any of:
* President of the European Council (since 1 December 2009, Herman Van Rompuy)
* President of the European Commission (since 22 November 2004, José Manuel Barroso)
* Presidency of the Cou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Other than Ray Nagin, there was actually a LOT of competence on the local level in small towns and such - it's just that the big mistakes were made by the big leaders. Louisiana suffered GREATLY there because of widespread ineptitude. Compare to Mississippi, where Haley Barbour did a VERY good job.
Of course, there were a lot of cultural differences where the generationally poor in New Orleans learned a hard lesson a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except there was nothing a sitting president could do about utter incompetence and corruption of local officials during a natural disaster, as virtually all disaster response resources are not controlled by the federal government and Federal powers are extremely limited in that regard. But I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with President Bush suspending posse comitatus and unseating state and local government officials, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Might be interesting - I didn't look up where those particular locations are - but this is the wrong thread for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The costs are just being paid for by someone else.
Ultimately they are being paid by the people who have always paid them: the people at the bottom who have no say in the matter.
I have to admit, I was thoroughly impressed by Obama's speech at the beginning of the health care BS. I figured if he could keep half of those promises he made we'd be in pretty good shape.
Unfortunately, he broke pretty much all the promises I remember him making during the speech. During the whole procession he cared less about what was in the bill and more about just getting so