home

Friday Night Open Thread

I missed the news today due to work, and my new i-Phone 4 arrived today and I'm about to set it up. (I'll let you all know how it goes and what's good and bad about it when I'm done. So far, it's still in the box.)

If you've got something to say, here's a place, all topics welcome. Please let me know if I missed anything big.

iPhone update below: [More...]

Update: It took a long time to install the iPhone4 operating system and back up the old phone, but once I plugged the new phone in it was really fast to activate -- less than 5 minutes. Transferring contacts and email from the old phone was easy. It's now transferring the music and videos which will probably take long time, then the photos.

Compared to the iPad, it's very tiny and harder to read. I haven't yet figured out how to transfer the apps from the iPad to the iPhone yet. Or how to delete apps that were on my old iphone that I don't use.

The screen seems smaller than the 3G. So do the letters on the keypad and my emails, but maybe that's something I have to play with.

< Perspective And Lebron | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They deserve each other! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:04:13 PM EST


    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#22)
    by esmense on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:15:39 AM EST
    They represent two different types of villans!

    The only innocent is the poor child.

    Parent

    Bob Somerby is incomparable (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:04:52 PM EST
    today in taking Markos to the woodshed...and rightly so.

    Wow, you're right. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:02:49 PM EST
    That piece is a gem. Particularly for the larger message contained therein.

    Parent
    Took Digby there too (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:13:44 AM EST
    He nails it (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:36:05 AM EST
    "Corporate Power loves this sprawling stupidification"

    But Kos is way beyond stupid in this case. Not helping.

    Parent

    And this (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Rojas on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:23:58 AM EST
    "We get to express our tribal loathing—the oldest tool of Power."

    Parent
    Somerby nails it (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    Kos is a piece of work - he (and others) truly have become what they once despised.

    And shame on Digby.  She's usually better than that.

    Parent

    Markos's image will forever be (none / 0) (#27)
    by observed on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:07:53 AM EST
    darkened by this affair.
    And that will be good for him, because he'll just cry "racism!" and ride back to the top.


    Parent
    Twitter twitter (none / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    Joe says the media has been negligent covering the Sestak story

    Markos says the media was negligent in covering a certain dead intern.

    Joe accuses Markos of suggesting he(Joe) is a murderer (3 or 4 times by Joe's count)

    Markos asks Joe to provide links where Markos suggests Joe is a murderer (Note: Joe can't provide links because Markos never suggested Joe was a murderer)

    ==== after twitter ======

    Joe gets MSNBC to ban Markos because of this  twitter exchange and unbelievably The Howler condemns Markos.

    Parent

    I am definitely not defending (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    Scarborough. He's horrible. the Howler deals with him regularly. More recently though, he is paying attention to those on the left side that, now that they finally have somewhat a voice in the national media, are wasting the opportunity to set themselves apart from the right by showing some integrity.

    Parent
    Kos's behavior is deplorable and (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:51:31 AM EST
    indefensible in this matter.

    Parent
    Some people think the media has (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    been negligent in covering the Juanita Broaddrick story. By your reasoning, that means whenever Bill Clinton says ANYTHING, a legitimate response is to bring up Broaddrick.


    Parent
    No, that's not (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    what I'm saying at all.

    Joe used his power to get Markos banned from a cable news channel (not just Joes's show but the whole news channel) based on Joe's lies of what Markos said in a twitter conversation

    Parent

    No longer read (none / 0) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    I don't read Somerby any longer and I used to read him every day.  He writes the same complaint.  I unfortunately went and read the piece.... here's his usual drivel:

    [But then, isn't Klausutis just a thing, a thing to be dragged through the mud? After all, Klausutis was a Republican--a member of the other tribe! Had she lived, she'd be a tea-bagger! Why show respect for such offal?]

    What insight.

    [As we smear and insult one another, Corporate Power spreads its tentacles all through American life. On the upside, we rubes do get to gambol and play. We get to express our tribal loathing--the oldest tool of Power.]

    uh.... isn't that how Somerby gets links, by smearing liberals?  He got boring for me a long time ago.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    I read the story, and have to agree, that guy seems like a real piece of work. I have particular dog in the race here, but from reading Markos version earlier, and now Somerby, I cannot see how anyone could read Somerby as anything but distorting Markos rather simple point. Maybe I am missing something but as far as being a slime bag, Somerby seems off the charts compared to Markos...  

    All I can think is that some here dislike Markos so much that they would jump on anything that resembles a case against him..

    Sad... imo.  

    Parent

    More eeeeeeevil fun making (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:39:50 AM EST
    If this is your coach, did you really ever have a chance at the World Cup?  I mean really?


    Who's the villian: Mel Gibson or Oksana? (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    I say Oksana. Very conniving money-grubber.


    I think we should be thanking her for finally (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    getting out in public what a pos neanderthal he is.  He is a vile, racist person who obviously hates women, and is apparently one mean sob.  I can't wait for the rest of the tapes to be aired so that we can finally put the nail in his career coffin.  

    Parent
    So you approve of her secretly (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    taping him, because he's such a bad person?
    Delightful.
    I am convinced she never wanted anything but money, and never cared about Gibson in the least.
    Is it ok for me to root for her to be to be left penniless and homeless at the end of this?


    Parent
    If he was abusing her it's absolutely okay for (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    her to have taped him.  She will need all the evidence she can get to prove any allegations against him.  If he abused her he's way more than "a bad person," in your words. I would categorize him as despicable. Did you listen to the tapes? The tone of his voice is beyond scary.  It's been said that he physically abused her as well, but we'll have to wait until the police have finished their investigation to know whether or not that is true.  Put all of this together with his other public statements - calling people "wetbacks" and "N.....s," "f-ing Jews," saying he wants to kill a reporter he doesn't like, telling someone to "stick this up your a$$," and nasty comments and rants to the police when pulled over for traffic violations.  Yeah, what a great guy.

    As far as her motives I don't know what they are and neither do you.  Regardles of what they are she doesn't deserve to be asbused - physically, emotionally or verbally.  You can root for whomover and whatever you want, doesn't really matter to me.  I'm just defending her right to protect herself from abuse, and if that means taping conversations, then so be it.  

    Parent

    I haven't listend to the tapes and (none / 0) (#83)
    by observed on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:03:31 AM EST
    don't care to.  Gibson has been known to be a bigoted, out of control alcoholic for years.
    I don't believe the woman didn't know that, going into the relationship. I'd also like to know why she didn't report anything about the January "abuse" for months.
    Whatever jerk Gibson is, she is apparently a money-grubbing user.

    Parent
    Perhaps you should listen to the tapes, they are (none / 0) (#97)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    quite revealing, IMO.  Now there are new tapes wherein he supposedly confirms that he hit her, told her that she "f-ing deserved it."  

    Why didn't she report this when it happened?  Well, there could be lots of reasons but I'm suspecting that like a lot of abusers he just charmed the socks off of her in the beginning of the relationship, she fell in love with him, and then the abuse started and it finally escalated to the point that she felt her life might be in danger so she finally spoke out.  This scenario is not unusual in abusive relationships, and is in fact, probably closer to the norm than reporting abuse at the first occurrence.  

    For you to suggest that she is nothing more than a mobey-grubbing user indicates that you don't know a lot about abusive relationships, which this one most definitely appears to have been.  

    Perhaps you could show a little sympathy to the person who appears to be the abused party and recognize that she probably felt endangered for herself and her child, and at the hand of the father of the child no less.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    Considering the racist, sexist and anti-semitic comments from the right wing christian fundie Gibson, whose has a very close relationship with his holocaust denier father Hunter Gibson, I would immediately side with his ex-girlfriend.

    But then again, anyone who would hang out with the guy, and share a bed on a regular basis, has to have questionable judgement as well. So, even though I would reflexively side with the ex, maybe it is really a coin toss...

    Parent

    Gibson is awful. However, (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:31:52 AM EST
    secretly taping him as well as waiting several months to make abuse allegations make me very suspicious of her.


    Parent
    Well said... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    Gibson sure seems like a slimeball, but to play spook and secretly tape him is slimey too.

    Gut feeling is they deserved each other.

    Parent

    Obama to open 1.8 mil acres to drill in Alaska, (none / 0) (#4)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    on the North Slope. LINK:
    The Interior Department is offering oil and gas leases on 1.8 million acres of Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve while promising to protect critical migratory bird and caribou habitat.


    What could possibly go wrong? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:18:31 PM EST
    Crude on the rocks! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    Palin must be very, very persuasive (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Yes2Truth on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:23:58 PM EST

    Has O already endorsed her for 2012?

    Parent
    Elections Have Consequences (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    Heh.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    Yeah, Obama is far more conservative in giving away Alaskan land to big oil than either Clinton or BushCo. Had McCain been elected the ANWR would have been open for drilling long ago. Other than that, well, business as usual.

    Obama opening up 1.8 million acres a big scaleback from Clinton and BushCo....  McCain/Palin would have undoubtedly expanded the area.

    The Bureau of Land Management has concluded that oil and gas exploration in the northeastern corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska can be conducted with "minimal impact" on the area's wildlife.

    While most of the 22 million-acre reserve is open to oil development, its lake-pocked northeastern corner has been fenced off, dating back to the Reagan administration, because of environmental concerns. That area also is viewed as having the highest oil and gas potential within the reserve....

    Most of the federal petroleum reserve was opened for oil drilling during the Clinton administration, although then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt fenced off 840,000 acres, including the area around Lake Teshekpuk. Norton expanded drilling in the reserve last year, but also left the northeastern section alone.

    link

    Parent

    After delving into that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:20:38 AM EST
    documentary 'Gasland', the seepage from hydraulic fracturing in search of gas kills all sorts of animals.  Then the seepage from the frac tanks kills everything else. Like any of us are going to be on the North Slope picking up the bodies for evidence.  It's a great place to rape, it'll be forever before anybody really understands that damage, and permanent damage sometimes at that, has been done.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:42:02 AM EST
    Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve had been designated as place to dig for oil since 1929. It covers 23,500,000 acres.

    Maps here and here.

    If people stop using oil, then we would not need it any more.

    Parent

    What this have to do with (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:44:50 AM EST
    Hydraulic fracturing?  Pretty sure my post was about hydraulic fracturing used to drill for natural gas....has nothing to do with oil.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:05:14 AM EST
    I thought the topic was offering 1.8 million acres for oil drilling leases in the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve.

    I did not realize that your comment was unrelated to the topic.

    Parent

    And what would you (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:38:46 AM EST
    suggest we use instead of oil?

    Parent
    Necessity is the Mother of Invention (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    you would be amazed how creative and innovative humans can be when they are motivated.

    Parent
    Shorter (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    "I have no idea of what oil is used for in the world but I will play like I do."


    Parent
    Oh, I see the waste (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    .... maybe we can all put our cellphones out of service.. that should save a KW or two...

    Parent
    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    ...what America wastes in a day could probably power us efficiently for months. Wasting is the core of our consumer economy.

    Parent
    Or, if someone could figure out (none / 0) (#47)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    how to separate oil from Gulf waters, we probably have enough for a few years.

    Parent
    That's one of the things that the ship (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    Obama blocked for over two months can do very well and is now doing it.

    Parent
    BS Wingnut Rhetoric (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 05:49:01 PM EST
    The Jones act had no effect on any foreign ship coming to the Gulf.

    The giant skimmer was a new oil tanker, that was retrofitted for skimming after the Deepwater leak and because of the Deepwater leak, in order to help with the gulf spill.

    Parent

    and all the other countries that were told no (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    Jones Act? (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    And the ship that was retooled to be a super skimmer, blocked by Obama for two month?

    What wingnut echo chamber sent you that bit of misinformation, or are you now getting direct reception through your teeth?

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    Some of the best clean up ships - owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used. Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O'Neil, says that is because they do not meet "the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command." One of those operational requirements is that vessels comply with the Jones Act. "Yes, it does apply," said ONeil," I have heard no discussions of waivers."

    Link

    The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters.

    Link

    Did the U.S. reject the offers?

    On May 5, the State Department issued a statement acknowledging that it had received several offers from countries. "While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future," the statement said.



    Parent
    Ah, A Portal to Wingnuttia (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:52:03 PM EST
    Faux noose, regurgitated right wing talking point and the like is also total BS. The dutch company offered the first day of the spill and the US said, we'll get backto you. This had zero to do with the Jones act

    As digby recently pointed outHere's something you don't see every day: a news anchor actually challenging a lying winger on the air and then going back the next day with a thorough fact check:

    it's really not that hard.


    Parent
    Ah, A Portal to Wingnuttia (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:55:24 PM EST
    1st link: Faux noose, regurgitated right wing talking point. The dutch company offered the first day of the spill and the US said, we'll get backto you. This had zero to do with the Jones act

    As digby recently pointed out:
    Here's something you don't see every day: a news anchor actually challenging a lying winger on the air and then going back the next day with a thorough fact check:

    it's really not that hard.


    Parent
    Stop lying. (none / 0) (#82)
    by observed on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, your repeated, brazen lying is grounds for banning.
    It's one thing to have a disagreement; it's another entirely to have a "contributor" whose contributions are a string of lies.


    Parent
    What "countries"? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:47:18 PM EST
    The only offer of assistance that's been turned down was an offer for a chemical dispersant that has not been approved, and the problem with such dispersants is well documented.

    Unless you're talking about the offers from Wingnutistan.  Personally, ...

    ... I don't take them seriously.

    Parent

    see my #59 (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    Not an answer (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:49:38 PM EST
    You suggested offers of assistance from other countries were rejected, hindering the clean up.  Then you ask "Did the U.S. reject the offers?"

    Hey, did you notice what you and Fox News did with that quote from the LTCDR?  What he actually said was that those ships do not meet their operational requirements, one of which is the Jones Act.  Much as you and Fox wish it were so, this does not mean (nor did he say) that the Jones Act was the reason that these ships are not being used.

    In fact, this claim has been thoroughly debunked.  The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply.  In a June 18 statement, the NIC also confirmed that "[W]e have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act" but are prepared to process waivers "should that be necessary."

    In short, the distorted quote of LTCDR O'Neil and the subsequent claims that the Jones Act has prevented ships from other countries to be used in the clean-up are BS.  Even H. Clayton Cook, a Washington attorney and expert on the Jones Act, a Republican, said there is no evidence that the Jones Act was standing in the way of the cleanup. "This is being used for political purposes. It's a classic red herring."

    Heh.

    Parent

    DOS said what it said (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#69)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 06:33:14 AM EST
    Can you name "countries that were told no [because the Jones Act]"?

    Parent
    See para 1 comment #59 (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    Plus

    June 29 via AP

    More than 30 countries and international organizations have offered to help with the spill. The State Department hasn't indicated why some offers have been accepted and others have not.

    Now what was the accident's date?

    BTW

    Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

    Link

    A rough calculation will give us an an idea of what 15 parts per million (ppm) represents.    One ppm is about 4 drops of ink in a 55 gallon barrel.  Fifteen ppm is about  60 drops of ink in a 55 gallon barrel or a little more than 1 cup of ink in the barrel!

    Hat tip to UrgentAgenda for the link.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 06:53:59 AM EST
    Although I have no idea what you're referring to.  OTOH, ... don't need to.  I have zero doubt that what they said was either misinterpreted or distorted by Fox and/or you, just like O'Neil's quote.  Guess that's why you didn't include a quote or link.

    BTW - Still not an answer.  Where is the evidence of offers of assistance from other countries being turned down?  Even better, if they were, the reasons why.

    Parent

    See my comment #72 (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    Already saw it ... still no answer (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    The reason is obvious.

    Parent
    Since my comment was (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    made two hours or so after your comment is hard to see how you "already seen it."

    I have given you all kinds of links showing how poorly the administration performed.... and that they turned down help.

    I even showed you that they did so because of the stupid "must be perfect rather than very good" rules from the EPA which could have been waived.

    Your continued questions reminds me of the old, "Oh, you mean you can't tell me color of the defendants eyes? I mean you were only a mile away."

    ;-)

    I suspect you will still be defending Obama no matter what information you are given.

    Game over.

    Have a nice day6.

    Parent

    Saw the answer before I replied, Jimbob (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    What you didn't do was provide links to anything (let alone reputable sources) to back up your claim that Obama blocked a ship for 2 months, all the offers from other countries that were rejected, etc.

    Yeah, .... you "suspect" a lot of things, and that's where your arguments usually fall apart.

    "Game over", indeed.

    Parent

    I never believe AP either (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 05:41:28 PM EST
    they are just so right wing.

    lol

    Parent

    Then you shouldn't cite them (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    You mean the article titled "US accepts international assistance for Gulf spill"?  The one that says nothing about what offers of assistance were refused or why?  

    wow.

    Of course, the rest of your links are to wingnut sources.

    Shocker.

    Parent

    I've been following this thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:17:43 AM EST
    between you two, because you appear to know a lot about this situation of offers of help from other countries.

    So, to be fair, the AP source does say that a dozen countries were welcomed by us -- but that means that help of more than a dozen and a half (i.e., more than 30 countries offered) was not welcome.

    So do you know, from another source, why we did not accept their help, Yman?  I mean, it would seem to me that well more than doubling and indeed almost tripling the help would significantly reduce the horrible outflow and its impact.

    After all, a lot of other countries have a stake in the impact.  This is an international disaster that our country has allowed for lack of due diligence in one of our federal agencies.

    (That's putting it too nicely.  The disaster is due to outright corruption in our federal government.)

    Parent

    Some Info Here (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:47:17 AM EST
    AP wrote what AP wrote (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    I agree with much ... (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    ... of what you're saying, but Jimakappj is making vague accusations pushing wingnut talking points that have been thoroughly debunked.  It's difficult to tell whether the accusations are vague because he really believes them, or because he knows they've been debunked but is trying to twist them into a more believable variation, or because they're merely suspicions he holds without any hard evidence.

    This article has a lot of well-sourced information, but to sum up:

    1.  The Jones Act has not acted as a barrier for any foreign ships being used in the Gulf cleanup.  Although the Jones Act is not currently applicable, the administration has taken steps to expedite a waiver should the need arise.

    2.  Some of the wingnuts have cited the State Department's announcement of the acceptance of foreign assistance to falsely suggest that it took 70 days to accept foreign assistance.  ""In fact, before today, there were 24 foreign vessels operating in the region and nine countries had provided boom, skimmers and other assistance. As early as May 11th boom arrived from Mexico, Norway and Brazil."

    3.  The number of offers of foreign "assistance" varies depending on how you define such offers.  Many offers of "assistance" are really offers from either private organizations or governments to sell equipment or services, which may or may not meet the needs of the Unified Command, or may/may not meet safety guidelines.  As Adm. Thallen indicated in his July 2 news conference:

    107 offers of foreign assistance from 44 countries and four international organizations. Sixty-eight of those offers were really government-to-government -- this one government extending the offer of equipment or personnel or supplies to us. Thirty-nine of those offers were by private offers, which become another potential source of supply for the types of equipment we might need... Out of the 68, government-to-government offers to date 35 appear to be equipment or resources that we could use.  We've accepted nine of those offers already and 24 of those offers are being processed right now through the State Department for acceptance...Of the 39 private offers, it looks like 30 of those are equipment or types of materials that we could use.  Those have been provided to our folks that are out there acquiring whatever it is booms, dispersants, or skinny material and they become part of the broader source of supply that we're pursuing in trying to resource our operation moving forward.

    There isn't much information available as to why specific offers were turned down, but on June 22 the UC responded:

    Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:

        * Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)
        * Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.
        * In one instance, the offering country's export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance
        * Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency

    Precisely why Jimakappj made allusions to rejected foreign aid, without mentioning specifics.  When he does get into specifics, he doesn't get those correct.  For example, he appears to be claiming that Obama blocked an unnamed ship "for over 2 months."  He follows up with specifics about Dutch skimmer technology, without indicating if this is the "ship" he was referring to earlier.  The truth is,:

    Three days after the accident, the Dutch government offered advanced skimming equipment capable of sucking up oiled water, separating out most of the oil, and returning the cleaner water to the Gulf. But citing discharge regulations that demand that 99.9985 percent of the returned water is oil-free, the EPA initially turned down the offer. A month into the crisis, the EPA backed off those regulations, and the Dutch equipment was airlifted to the Gulf

    In short, I think the administration's response should be fully examined by the media and by Congress, but I give no credence to the debunked claims made by Drudge, Palin, Jimakappj, etc.

    Parent

    You said it yourself (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:21:54 PM EST
        * Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)

    The EPA rules are nutso and Obama wouldn't dare wave them...

    I mean the Dutch have no experience and care nothing about the environment. Real meanies them.

    And the admin's response being examined by the media?

    hahahahaha

    Thanks, I needed the laugh.

    BTW -

    Precisely why Jimakappj made allusions to rejected foreign aid, without mentioning specifics.

    That you refuse to believe the FP article is your choice. But you have not refuted it.

    Parent

    Sure I did (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    The opinion piece by Solomon in FP is an unsupported, evidence/data-free opinion piece.  All it takes to refute a gratuitous assertion is a denial.

    It's easy.

    BTW - That's one of the reasons cited by the UC, and it's a valid one.  For example, even chemical dispersants that have been approved (like Corexit) carry a large number of very serious risks, including the fact that they can disperse the oil under the ocean's surface, making it more difficult to clean up), concentration of remaining oil toxins, their own chemical toxicity which in many ways is worse than oil, issues of effectiveness, etc.  These are all issues with a tested and approved chemical dispersant.  Why would they risk even greater damage from an untested dispersant that has not been approved?

    There's a reason physician's live by the rule, "First, do no harm".

    Parent

    Uh, that is an example (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    Do you see the difference??

    No? Well, I think you do but you will never admit that Obama has flunked in the eyes of the world, not just the American public.

    Parent

    Please see my comment #85, plus (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has spent the past week and half fighting to get working barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. By Thursday morning, against the governor's wishes, those barges still were sitting idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

    Sixteen barges sat stationary Thursday, although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday.

    The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

    A Coast Guard representative told ABC News that it shares the same goal as the governor.

    "We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

    But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

    From that wingnut ABC News. (Sarcasm alert)

    Evidently the Coast Guard, in this case, can't inspect while the barges work.

    I wonder if they can chew bubble gum and walk.

    Bureaucratic bumbling while the oil pours.

    Yet Obama never said a word.

    He is not, has not been and never will be concerned about this. It is claimed he is a narcissist. That everything must be about him.

    I'm not a fan of psycho babble. But I agree with that assessment of the President. And that frightens me.

    Parent

    Yeah, the nerve of the Coast Guard (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    Insisting on making sure proper precautions are taken instead of gambling with workers' safety.  Delaying these barges for a day to determine if they are reasonably safe to accomplish the very dangerous job of capturing/transporting oil by barge, rather than risking an even greater catastrophe and further loss of life.

    What were they thinking?

    Parent

    Yes, the FP is just to wingut. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:56:56 AM EST
    Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

    FP

    Face it. The wacko environmentalists have forced us into the deep water and their "must be perfect" clean up rules kept much of the help away.

    Face it. Obama would have had to wave both the Jones law and the EPA rule. That would have riled both the unions and the environmentalists, two important voting blocks for him.

    Besides, he wanted to use this as a wedge to do cap and tax... oopps "trade." (haha)

    But that isn't working to well, eh?


    Parent

    too well (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    These giant Dutch (none / 0) (#89)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 09:47:46 AM EST
    skimmers are working 20 - 50 miles off-shore.  The EPA does not have jurisdiction beyond 3 miles.

    Parent
    Not sure about FP, ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    ... but the author of the opinion piece, making these claims citing no supporting documentation or data, is Lawrence Solomon, a global warming "skeptic", who heads an "environmental" group (Energy Probe) dedicated to voluntary environmental regulation, private property rights and "independent" (non-governmental) environmental regulation.

    Parent
    Just because he opposes something (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    that you do not doesn't mean that he is wrong.

    In fact, I would say he is correct regarding the rule specifying the amount of oil that must be removed (amount left).

    Parent

    No kidding (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    But his background does put him in wingnut territory, and the fact that he writes an unsourced/data-free opinion piece that you happen to agree with does not help your argument.

    Parent
    Oh really? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    Energy Probe is a consumer and environmental research team, active in the fight against nuclear power, and dedicated to resource conservation, economic efficiency, and effective utility regulation.

    Current Priorities

    Our 30 years of research have led us to conclude there is a great need to:

    Restore strong regulation in energy markets
    Promote a renewable energy future
    Stop nuclear expansion
    Protect consumer interests when considering energy purchases and options

    Looks pretty much mainstream environmental
    stuff that is standard Left wing fare.

    But you don't want to believe him..

    Parent

    Uhhmmm, .... yeah, ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    ... really.  Of course they try to sound like a mainstream, respectable, environmental organization, but look a little deeper at their priorities:

    ... by promoting property rights (private or communal), markets, ... by advocating property rights where resources can be exclusive, divisible, and alienable ... EPRF advocates property rights: ... to account fully for social and environmental costs based on the values assigned by the rights holders ... We generally oppose expropriation, which often results in environmental harm. We believe that voluntary agreements more fully internalize costs, protect the environment, and ensure economic efficiency.

    There's virtually no information available about them, which is strange considering their claims of prominence.  Very telling, however, is that Solomon's book is published by Richard Vigilante Books, a right-wing publisher.  But his book has received rave reviews - not from actual experts in climatology mind you, but from NRO, American Spectator, Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, etc..

    Yeah ... "pretty much mainstream environmental stuff" ...

    ... in Wingnutia.

    Parent

    Maybe in your generation and your world (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    In mine it was "turn off the light when you leave the room."

    And we need to start teaching the kiddies about energy efficient appliances rather than drowning polar bears.

    Parent

    If you can't see waste all around you... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:45:25 PM EST
    ...then we have a massive difference of perception of reality. It is amazing to me, Jim, that whenever this subject comes up, you, miraculously, have never ever been part of the problem. Your life must have been lived in perfect balance, where what you consume is equally matched by what you produce and conserve.  Astounding.

    That said, shuffle up and deal.

    Parent

    If you have been reading (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    you would know that I have spent the last few years redoing a house... more insulation, energy efficient appliances, CFL's, etc.

    Our personal vehicles average 26MPH collectively.

    But the facts remain that we have no substitute for oil. And OPEC is squeezing us as dry as a vampire's victim and all we do is cry and moan about inventing things that can't be invented in time to save us and turning down the thermostat and adding taxes that will further destroy the economy.

    In the meantime this administration has proven it couldn't manage a 10 seat diner, much less overseeing the problems we have in the gulf.

    Parent

    No Solar Panels? (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 12:13:46 AM EST
    Shame on you!

    Parent
    If you will send me $20K (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 08:03:58 AM EST
    I will get right on it.

    Parent
    I predict Spain will win FIFA (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    Would add icing to the cake since Nadal won Wimbledon

    I'm going with the oranje. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    The octopus concurs.

    Parent
    Paul (none / 0) (#32)
    by Grey on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    He picked La Furia Roja, not the Oranje.  I hope he's right!  

    Parent
    The Dutch are going to KILL Spain (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:06:55 AM EST
    right after they brutalize them :)

    Parent
    I admire your conviction... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    but, I admire the play of Spain more.

    A good, and enlightening article in the NYTimes today about the long and many-layered South African/Dutch connection. In a sweeping way, it brings it all back to Nelson Mandela and his own healing belief in the healing power of sport.

    Parent

    I've had my iPhone 4 since launch (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:43:26 PM EST
    and I love it.

    I think you'll love yours too, Jeralyn.

    lebron james, lebron james, lebron james (none / 0) (#13)
    by imhotep on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:43:44 PM EST
    That seemed to be the most important story of the day and was covered by ALL news programs.

    Now that Lebron will be a Miami (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    resident, maybe his celebrity can be enlisted to draw attention to the Gulf's BP/Obama administration's oil catastrophe.  But then, again, it is no longer necessary. It was a close call but the all clear seems to have been sounded based on the national sense of urgency. The gusher has apparently been plugged, oil spill contained, clean-up completed, and ecology and economy of the region restored.  Moreover, the catastrophe was seized to correct long-standing government corruption and incompetence with strong new regulations and enforcement for both shallow and deep water offshore drilling, including a requirement for simultaneous relief well drilling.   And, as the Coast Guard Admiral Mary Landry said way back in early May, BP is a "responsible spiller", and the Department of Interior has moved quickly to rename MMS the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.  And, an investigation into what went wrong may soon be underway, and may even be useful if the senate will let the Commission have subpoena power.

    Parent
    Snark beats despair (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    but I don't know how you in that region do not all descend into despair.

    It's good to see the snark, as it means you still are fighting mad.  I look for your posts; please keep 'em coming, snarky or otherwise.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, To manage your apps (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:20:00 AM EST
    You probably already figured this out, but when either the phone or the pad are connected to your computer in iTunes, click the device in the iTunes left sidebar, then click the Apps tab in the main iTunes window, and check or uncheck apps accordingly to select for that device. You can also organize your app pages there.

    I know when I go right from my iPad to my 3GS, the phone screen seems tiny too. My friend and I compared the 3GS screen size to the 4, though, and they are the identical  size at least as far as you can tell holding them side by side. The resolution is a lot better on the 4 though, which may be why print seems smaller. It should be sharper too, and easier to read. Let me know how that goes for you.

    Do you have a death grip?

    Big news for NYers... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    of the great news variety....Jimmy Cliff performing Sunday afternoon at Central Park Summerstage...free!

    There may be No Justice under this system, in this society...but there is still joy to be had.  Don't let it pass you by!  

    I'll tell you (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 02:49:40 AM EST
    What bugs me.....traffic lights!

    Wouldn't it be a great project for some enterprising college student to research & calculate how much gas is wasted at traffic lights every day. The number has to be astronomical. Now, I realize some traffic light control is necessary, and some intersections are sensor regulated, but they are few and far between and woefully inadequate.

    My schedule necessitates my working through the night occasionally. So, sometimes, around 3-4 a.m. I'll shoot over to a convenience store, about a mile away for a few munchies. So, I'm driving South on a State road and have to make a left turn into a little shopping center. Naturally the left turn lane is Red. Then I hear the click on the radio signifying the light's about to change. So, yes, the light changed, but not to let me make my left turn, but to let the totally empty parking lot egress out onto the State Rd. I'st the phantom cars get to make their left turn out of the parking lot, and then they stop (or would stop if there were any) then they get to make a right turn.....No right on Red, remember (just to add to the insanity).

    So, here I am, the only soul awake in the county, dutifully waiting for each cycle to carry out it's duty, feeling like a complete & total effing jerk, wasting more gas at this one traffic light than I would use on the entire trip, there and back, had I simply been allowed to use common sense instead of being held captive to a diabolical, sociopathic, mechanical device.

    I'll bet you that we'd end our dependence on foreign oil if we'd only devise and implement a sane traffic control system.

    And it could be done.......if only Mobil-Exxon would let us.


    Well ranted Shooter... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 06:24:54 AM EST
    from 2-6 am the stop light should convert to the blinking red (stop) for one direction and the blinking yellow (proceed with caution) for the other...at least till we come up with a better way.

    And you definitely do feel like a clown sitting at a light when you're the only human being awake for miles...before red light cameras you could use your common sense, but with the cameras common sense can get expensive:)

    Ya got me thinking about the explosion of the 4-way stop sign down in the boroughs...every time I'm back in the old 'hood I'm amazed at how almost every regular stop sign became a 4-way stop...that's gotta waste some gas too, and brake pads.  Totally unnecessary, and annoying. Stop Go Stop Go Stop Go.

    Parent

    and millions (none / 0) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    and millions of gallons of gas.

    Parent