There’s no denying the oil leak at the Deepwater Horizon well is an ecological nightmare, and it’s certainly not unprecedented, but while some on the left and the right have been critical of the Obama administration’s handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak (including yours truly, to some extent), it’s important to remember that the Ixtoc I oil spill of 1979 took nearly 10 months to completely cap, and that well was being drilled in only 150 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now I certainly hope it doesn’t take 10 months to completely cap the Deepwater Horizon leak,and while I can certainly understand the urgency in getting the leak completely capped, it’s important to remember that there often isn’t an easy solution to these types of situations.
At this point I’m not interested in finger pointing. They just need to fix it.
I have to admit I don’t understand the logic of some (regardless of political affiliation) who scream about smaller government and less regulation and then turn around and expect the government to clean up this mess. You can’t want the government to go away and let business run rampant and then blame the government when big businesses screw up. As I said though I’m not interested in blame. Everyone knows a mistake was made. I just hope they get this stopped and cleaned up as fast as they can.
I feel remarkably stupid for falling for those “safe and clean deep ocean drilling” advertisements though with their safe-looking “one platform for many wells” diagrams and such. This disaster surprised me because I let those advertisements convince me it was safe.
Yeah, you’re right about the folks who advocate for smaller government and less regulation but who want the government to do more when situations like this arise. You can’t have things both ways.
On the flip side the folks who advocate for bigger government and more regulation — where are they in this? You don’t seem to be demanding anything of your government. But then Bush isn’t there to kick around, so they’ll just whistle and hope it goes away.
Wow you guys will never understand the meaning of smaller government. The federal government’s inability to handle basic functions (in this case merely allowing the states and locals to forgo red tape/permits to try some innovative solutions), only proves why it should not take on more. When government fails or is inefficent on the basics why do you want it to take on more? You really trust the government to handle your retirement and health care? We pay so much for government and it can’t seem to do anything when really needed, unless you want a lousy school breakfast.
Can’t have it both ways…either the feds are in or they are out. In this case it looks like they were out when they should have actually been doing something. So let’s let private business handle it, they are doing such a bang up job of it…or we can just hand it off to Gov. Jindal. He wants the feds out of his state, well aah, except for maybe right now.
I’m more relaxed that our current administration isn’t attacking due process or civil rights like the previous one would do. I can sleep better at night knowing it won’t be trying to score political points with organizations that stop just short of being hate groups, such as the Family Research Council. Not warmongering for political points is a good thing too. That’s my main reason for voting for the strongest party that has a chance to keep Republicans out. I’m not a Democrat, though I often agree with the Democratic Party. I’m anti-Republican, or specifically anti-far-right Republican. When it comes to the very basics of believing in liberty and justice, fiscal responsibility or the size of the government doesn’t come into my consideration at all when voting. I’m shocked how many Republicans are supporting institutionalized bigotry by opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, though I suppose I shouldn’t since it hasn’t been ten years since the Texan government was invading private bedrooms.
On this topic, I think it’s kind of ridiculous to expect the government to have the tools at the ready to handle an oil spill that is not the result of a natural disaster, but rather the sloppy mistakes of corporations. Somehow the federal government is at fault for the response to a private company’s mess? Isn’t that the kind of thing the yelling and screaming and foot stomping about the bailouts was about? I had more issue with what the Bush Administration did or tried to do than what it didn’t do. I think our last president’s last few months were actually quite dignified, and I like how he tried to push for bipartisan immigration reform. It’s not blind bashing of Bush so much as it an intense fear for the more sinister things the far right tries to pull off.
I find it interesting that our military and the brave people who serve or have served in it are not complimented when it comes to a government organization that works quite well, not to mention the brave fire fighters or police. Somehow corporations bent on nothing more than increasing profits are more trustworthy than a governmental organization designed to serve the people? Private business is an important part of our country, but it cannot run rampant. I think this disaster makes that perfectly clear. This disaster should never have happened. Clearly there should have been more regulations and safeguards. Profit is worth too much to too many people for a lack of regulation to be a good thing.
Desiring regulation is not the same as wanting uncontrolled growth in the government, nor is a desire for business to be regulated opposition to business in general. I’m not saying the Obama Administration is doing a perfect job with this disaster, but it’s done far more that I approve of than I don’t in general.
I agree completely. Which is why I’m against, and think it is simply idiot for the administration to go on the attack and being a criminal investigation. They’re just guaranteeing everyone will lawyer up and be in total CYA mode instead of doing whatever they can to help fix the problem.
I fully support a criminal investigation – but there’s a time and a place, and absolutely no need to press forward now at the expense of actually fixing the most crucial problem.
It’s plainly a decision made for political reasons – and really a shame.
Well Ed, now that’s not true at all. It doesn’t have to mean government is in everything or nothing. The feds should be limited to very few responsibilities — national security, securing our borders (fail), making sure food and water are safe, dealing with disasters, like our coastline. Liberals had us believe the federal government wasn’t responsive during Katrina merely because Bush wasn’t capable. But Obama was supposed to change all that.
Instead you have this President talking about punishing a company (“boot on their throat”), going to fundraisers, and taking vacations — but not taking action. Liberals always run on the premise that we should trust them to run a responsive federal government. So who’s really trying to have it both ways here?
I don’t think Jindal wants the feds in his state right now — in fact the way I see it he mostly wants them and their wonky permitting process out of the way so he can get the job done. The federal government keeps taking on new responsibilities and as a result it is no longer capable of performing essential tasks.
I didn’t mean the government had to be in everything or out of everything…I meant that if we want them in something they need to be in it all the way…not stop at some artificial or nebulous line in the sand!
Actually Gov. Jindal is screaming to have the feds fix the oil issue…but he wants them to do it his way…and if it’s ok for a state to take on federal responsibilities in Arizona via SB 1070, why doesn’t he just go ahead and do what he wants in LA? Oh, wait, if he does that it isn’t attached to federal dollars.
Yeah I’m not happy that since the time the federal government got so big and encompassing, it can use its deep pockets (er, ability to borrow) to blackmail states into doing what it wants and how it wants it. The feds have created such a severe dependency model for state and local governments that they often can’t do what they want or believe.
What? They never heard of “just say no?”
I don’t know what LA’s federal cash flow ratio is but I would imagine it gets ack more than it sends to DC.
“Just say no?” Wow Ed, sounds like you are advocating for smaller government! If states say no, they would have to cut something right? “But what about the children?”
I am in favor of small government…that has never been an issue…it’s what part of government do we keep that has always been the difference.
And replacing federal largesse with the same thing at the state level isn’t small government…it’s just redistributing the wealth (and evenutally the blame).
Isn’t it fun to just spout buzz words?
Everyone is complaining about the President not taking action…and I’ll include myself in that group…but what exactly would you suggest he do now and what should he have done up to now?
btw, ironically the best natural disaster management example by a national leader is probably the Prime Minister Thaksin of Thailand right after the tsunami in December 2004. Presidents Bush and Obama should review what he did.
And I don’t think coming down with a $69m bill for BP is doing any good right now.
In international waters, a foreign company has an accident that delivers debris to a country’s shoreline. The locals want their own government to step in and take control because the lease and authorization to drill came from their country. The accident occurs on the ocean floor, the company is sparing no expense to try multiple ways to stop this oil flow. The country has no methods of its own to stave the oil flow and is dependent upon the company and its resources to be effective.
I am not sure that this is legal to take over a company. I cannot believe it is criminal to have an accident in a high risk industry in international waters. I cannot see any advantage in having the USG control the situation 100%.
Why do we need to do anything more than adopt defensive tactics to protect our shoreline and clean up the mess?
From what I have read about the UN Law of the Seas (1982), a coastal nation has a territorial limit to the waterways it controls for navigation that is 12 miles from the low water mark along its coast, but has a minimum 200 mile limit on it’s continental shelf which includes the right to control any economic development in that area of its coast. That includes searches for minerals or oil or any source points of pollution.
BP’s site is 40 miles out (and for sake of discussion we are talking nautical miles).
If it were in international waters I don’t think they’d need anyone’s permission to drill there…