Jackson Free Press

Officials have once again revised their estimates of the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico from the site of the devastated Deepwater Horizon rig, the fifth revision since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers. Yesterday, the estimate increased to 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day, or 1.47 million to 2.52 million gallons. At that rate, the spill will quickly overtake the 1979 Ixtoc blowout, the region's largest spill to date, which leaked some 3 million barrels into the Gulf in 10 months, reports The Christian Science Monitor.

The math is devastatingly simple: 60,000 barrels for 58 days is 3.48 million total barrels. The current amount of oil BP is collecting from the destroyed well is approximately 18,000 barrels. The relief well, which BP says is its best hope for stopping the volcano of oil, will take another couple of months before anyone knows whether it will achieve success.

"We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes," said President Barack Obama in a speech last night. "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy."

Previous Comments

ID

158229

Comment

Give conservatives credit: They are true believers. Only true believers could defend BP at a time like this. What's next, an impassioned defense of child molesters? "I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) during a hearing on Thursday morning with BP's CEO Tony Hayward. "I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown ... that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future. I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize." Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), offered this commentary: "(BP) shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest — they've got to be legitimate claims. The other thing we have to remember is that Obama loves to make evil whatever company it is that he wants to get more power from. He makes them evil, and what we've got to ask ourselves is: Do we really want to be paying $9 for a gallon of gas? Because that could be the final result of this." At the same time, Senate Republicans blocked a proposal to eliminate the $75 million cap on liability. Specifically, a vote was blocked by climate-change denier Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Arizona are in a tight race to become the new Capital of Crazy. Finally, there's endlessly oily Haley Barbour: "If they take a huge amount of money and put it in an escrow account so they can't use it to drill oil wells and produce revenue, are they going to be able to pay us?" Gov. Haley Barbour told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday. Barbour puts this as a question to avoid an outright lie. BP made $25 billion in profits in 2008 alone. BP already has more than 18 billion barrels of proven reserves. And BP spends about $20 billion per year in capital investment. So Barbour is just misleading the public one more time. Sometimes, I think the Republicans are secretly paid by Obama. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-06-17T10:18:13-06:00

ID

158230

Comment

How many millions is our government setting aside to cover the liability of the crooked/incompetent regulators and inspectors? Oh wait -- our government doesn't have its own money -- it just keeps taking ours and spending it for us.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-17T10:47:44-06:00

ID

158238

Comment

Brian, I'm with ya. It seems that no matter what Obama does about the situation, conservatives are ready to make him evil incarnate. Their entire political strategy consists of having Obama fail regardless of its consequences. I'm sure you've seen the meme that puts the blame for this nightmare on conservationists for "forcing" drilling in deeper water (instead of ANWR, for example). Never mind that the oil companies make detailed risk/reward studies before any venture: they would never do such a thing unless they can see a great big potential payoff for their efforts. Their mandate, after all, is profits, not people. It's stunning how conservatives consistently choose Big Corporations over their constituents well being. Still, the American public continues to buy into the propaganda, even when its clearly against their best interests.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-17T16:30:40-06:00

ID

158239

Comment

Mark, put in a little more effort. The claim that the government "takes" our money is lazy hyperbole. Every government collects taxes, and ours does so with the consent of the governed. A crisis like this one shows that most libertarians are hypocrites. They claim to believe that government has a legitimate role in preventing fraud. But then avowed libertarians such as Rand Paul fall all over themselves to defend BP. Like others on the right, libertarians are eager to rationalize corporate theft of public goods. A business like BP can only make such profits through externalities. Most of the time, these externalities are hidden. Now, they are plain to everyone but ideologues and corporate apologists.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-06-17T18:22:58-06:00

ID

158240

Comment

Barton retracted his idiotic apology, btw, but the "shakedown" meme is now in the conservative handbook. Look for more references soon. The New York Times—which is doing a decent job of covering the disaster—had another interesting piece last Sunday, the day before the estimates were increased for the fifth time: A Disaster, Privately Managed: So what amount of oil was coming out of that hole in the first place? We will never know, in part because our government has never gained custody of information. What is clear is that even weeks into the disaster, public information has been privatized in whole or in part. Every disaster has chaotic elements and a need to maintain order and safety, but the economic interests of a large commercial enterprise are clearly impeding the free flow of information. Journalists in the gulf are now dealing with a hybrid informational apparatus that does not reflect government’s legally mandated bias toward openness and transparency. The story goes on to say that BP is claiming information on the disaster is "considered stock-market sensitive, which means it has to be managed under disclosure rules for the London and N.Y. stock exchanges." Great. More Big Business control of the news.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-17T18:52:22-06:00

ID

158241

Comment

Ronni, it is outrageous that the Obama Administration has allowed BP to control information in this way. I wrote the president weeks ago urging him to send scientists to measure the rate of spill. The idea that BP "owns" a crime scene is insane. There also have been reports of journalists being turned away from public beaches by BP personnel. As for Barton, he apologized after a private meeting with Boehner. My guess is that Boehner used the phrase "you f***ing idiot" more than once. Note that Barton is the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the modern Republican Party. Except perhaps that the number one contributor to Barton's campaigns has been Anadarko Petroleum, which had a 25 percent stake in the Deepwater Horizon well. They have given Barton more than $140,000. So the corruption right out there in the open. The Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil companies.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-06-17T19:19:30-06:00

ID

158242

Comment

So I assume that Obama will be donating the $900,000 in campaign contributions he received from the oil and gas industry to the clean-up efforts, then?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-17T19:45:08-06:00

ID

158243

Comment

According to reports I've seen, it's not "BP personnel" who are turning reporters away, it's BP contractors (many of whom are out of work fishermen), who may have been threatened by BP with contract termination should they allow the press to get past. Meantime, naturalists observing area wildlife report seeing no one working to protect or clear oil from the most sensitive wildlife areas, or even replacing booms meant to soak up the oil. Think Progress is also reporting that BP has turned down offers of help from firefighters, which is free, btw. This is not a media "event," nor is it a PR issue: This is an unprecedented ecological and economic disaster. The sooner people catch on to that, the better.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-17T21:26:14-06:00

ID

158244

Comment

Mark, if your point is that Democrats are also corrupted by the oil industry and other corporations, you'll get no argument from me. Obama certainly deserves criticism. He should never have proposed more offshore drilling. It was a political gesture that has blown up in his face. That said, your attempt at drawing an equivalence fails miserably. While both parties are corrupted by corporate money, the Democrats favor sensible regulation. The Republicans oppose regulation, even in the face of disaster. The Democrats support an alternative energy policy. The Republicans oppose all attempts at reform. Most Democrats recognize the scientific consensus on climate change. Most Republicans think scientists are disciples of Cthulu and conspirators in some global elite. To put it simply, Obama forced BP to put $20 billion in an escrow fund. Today, a Republican called that a "tragedy of the first proportion." The Democrats are far from perfect. They only look good because the Republicans are an absolute disgrace.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-06-17T22:33:04-06:00

ID

158246

Comment

Rep. Burton’s idiotic apology yesterday to BP was disgraceful. The Republicans like Barton (a bought and paid for shill by any measure) who are defending BP are the ones who should apologize for being more sympathetic towards an irresponsible multi-billion dollar oil company than the people on the Coast who are being hurt daily by this disaster. Their hatred for President Obama is blinding them to common sense.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2010-06-18T09:27:10-06:00

ID

158249

Comment

Republicans are so stupid. I don't even worry about them and Glenn Beck and crew anymore. They are just so retarded. It's easier just to sit back and laugh. Conservatism in its present format is destined to die, literally, when all its 70-year old proponents die with it from diabetes because they are all fat! Look at that fat ass Haley Barbour.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-18T13:47:37-06:00

ID

158250

Comment

Off topic, but is Alabama racist? Yes, yes it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuHM83vJdy8

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-18T13:53:31-06:00

ID

158252

Comment

I feel that we are witnessing the death of Reaganism. Or rather, we are watching its suicide. Radical deregulation has lost all credibility after disasters in the financial and energy industries. The southern strategy is becoming an anchor around the Republicans' neck as demographics make a politics of white resentment untenable. The next step is restoring progressive taxation. Supply-side economics has failed completely. More to the point, there is simply no way to address our deficits without raising taxes on the wealthy. The middle class has nothing left to give after decades of exploding costs in housing, health care, and education. The affluent have looted the republic and accumulated unprecedented wealth. Now, it's time to restore the post-World War II consensus. We must embrace the taxation of the Greatest Generation and restore a fair deal for the middle class. We should demand the Full Nixon, or income taxes on the wealthiest Americans of at least 50 percent. Consider that since the Reagan years, some 80 percent of income growth has gone to the wealthiest 10 percent. The rest of us have had to make due with their scraps. American citizens and soldiers made the world safe and profitable for "multinational" corporations and the super-rich. They thank us by committing despicable crimes in the name of unlimited greed. We can either limit their power or go on watching them wreck our country.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-06-18T20:25:21-06:00

ID

158253

Comment

Interesting that we are even debating this , when all this is just a talking turmoil in a tea kettle. To think or assume that YOU as a citizen of either party are important to the political process in hilarious, imo. The only time YOU are important is on election day . Once you have elected or RE-elected the servants of the corporations, your voice is immaterial. A revolution will come about in this country when the critical mass of discontent has been reached. Until that time, the politicians of either party do exactly what their corporate sponsors tell them to do . Obama has no documents that I have found. Bush is a oil pimp. ..just go on and on . pick ANY elected official..and they have links to the corporate funding. good luck on the debates..to both of you . Until the energy you invest in debating creates RESULTS, it is just a play to be observed.

Author

bobmcalister

Date

2010-06-19T09:21:57-06:00

ID

158263

Comment

@bob When's the revolution? Should I buy guns?

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-21T12:36:52-06:00

ID

158269

Comment

when the middle class decides they have had enough. that is when . you think your vote for President matters? If you had a group of 2% of the population that would vote as a bloc , you could control the US, just like the corporations do now. and if you dont own weapons now, you should buy them soon before gun ownership is outlawed. you remember the story of the guys in germany ? he didnt respond when the Nazis came for his neighborhood baker: nor when they came for the tailor, or the priest or the rabbi and it was too late to respond when they came for him. think it wont happen? it all ready has started. think your little Iphone is a cool piece of technology . you use the gps, watch your auto being tracked...think about the ramifications. and go buy a gun while it is legal. get it registered. keep it close.

Author

bobmcalister

Date

2010-06-21T14:43:33-06:00

ID

158272

Comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4a5Pev62KA Bill Mahr says "F--- your jobs" at around 2:00.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-21T14:57:14-06:00

ID

158286

Comment

@Bob Why would I want to get the gun registered? Doesn't that allow the government to track it, and in the process me? Wouldn't it be better to buy a stolen one with the VIN scratched off like the gangs do? I ask again though, WHEN? WHEN is the revolution? What is our first target? Who is the enemy? Is it ok to shoot at the police if they come for your guns? How about the army? I thought they were supposed to be heroes now. Do they revoke their hero status when they come for your guns? My cousin's job is to protect Obama. If he comes for my guns, what takes precedence, his life or fighting for liberty. If you are worried about being tracked on your phone, why are you posting on the internet? Don't you know the government can pull your IP address and are keeping track of everything you say? If Obama is the new Hitler, then who are the Jews that are going to be rounded up this time? White people? Actual Jews again? Black people? Mexicans? Mississippians? My questions need answers!

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-22T23:58:23-06:00

ID

158295

Comment

Bob- Who are you going to register the gun with? The Feds? State? Neither one of them register guns now.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-23T13:08:08-06:00

ID

158296

Comment

Bubba- I bought a new .45 a few weeks ago and I can assure you that I was required to fill out the federal form.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-23T14:07:53-06:00

ID

158297

Comment

Those forms record purchase, not ownership, and (supposedly) our government doesn't keep them long-term.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-23T14:35:08-06:00

ID

158298

Comment

I should clarify -- the forms are for the dealer's record-keeping, though the ATF can request a copy for the purpose of criminal investigation.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-23T14:37:55-06:00

ID

158300

Comment

Yeah, I bought a 12-gauge a couple of weeks ago for the coming race war, and I had register it with Obama. It took forever. I was also told that if the gun left my possession, I would have to inform the authorities. I don't remember which authorities I was supposed to contact though ::scratches head::

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-23T14:46:32-06:00

ID

158306

Comment

Bill= yes you filled out a yellow sheet, a form 4473 that's just a record of the sale,just means they have a record of you legally buying it, what happens to it after that they don't keep up with, unless you trade it with a dealer.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-23T16:22:09-06:00

ID

158308

Comment

this was not a 4473. I filled out hundreds of those when I worked in a pawnshop as a teenager. This was a multi page form, and not yellow. BTW, everyone should have a 1911.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-23T17:51:42-06:00

ID

158326

Comment

I did not fill out any "sheet." I inputted information electronically into a computer, which I assume was matched to my criminal record at the FBI. I had to receive approval from the "feds" before I was allowed to purchase, or at least that is what I was told....Was there some vast government conspiracy going on I didn't know about? I was told I had to inform authorities if the gun left my possession. If my gun is not registered with someone, why would I have to tell anyone? Also, if I really wanted to be a criminal, couldn't I just call them right now and lie and say it was stolen, then when I go kill someone, say "Oh I reported that stolen 2 years ago." What is the point of informing authorities to begin with?

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-24T15:27:46-06:00

ID

158327

Comment

Bill- the 4473 has changed since the Brady Bill it is a multi page sheet now. Some are yellow some are not depends on who printed them. Dealers can download them a print them out now. If you go to the ATF website you can see the new 4473. Own just 1 1911? Is that humanly possible?, they tend to breed. LOL

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-24T16:19:43-06:00

ID

158329

Comment

Mark- I see you still suffer from post-hold syndrome. LOL Come on, FREE MARK, it messes up the discussion when post aren't there.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-24T17:04:09-06:00

ID

158335

Comment

It's okay, Bubba, I don't mind the wait. It gives me more free time to spend on the secret Mises.org forums where we discuss how libertarian ideas, free markets, and Austrian economic theory are really just codewords for the larger plan of keeping minorities poor and destitute, building ever-larger multinational corporations (Profits, Not People -- that's our motto), marginalizing scientists as godless Bible-haters, and, whenever possible, destroying the environment.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-25T08:22:51-06:00

ID

158338

Comment

Whoa. Did somebody hit Mark with a dose of truth serum? Congrats on coming clean on the strategery, Mark -- you'll see eventually that it's a win for your side.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-25T09:33:13-06:00

ID

158342

Comment

Mark-LOL

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-25T13:53:36-06:00

ID

158343

Comment

Oh man -- I wasn't supposed to tell the commie pinkos about that, was I? On a related note, I'm looking for ideas on how to advance the "Profits, Not People" agenda...not only do I want profits to be more important than people, I want to remove people from the equation entirely. I don't want people making the profits, or people enjoying the profits, or even people calculating the profits. I just want profits, self-extant, for no other purpose than profit itself. The only exception I could see making would be for prophets, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-25T13:58:53-06:00

ID

158349

Comment

Oh man -- I wasn't supposed to tell the commie pinkos about that, was I? Or, for that matter, the free enterprise idealists who live the realities of small business ownership every day. I just want profits, self-extant, for no other purpose than profit itself. The only exception I could see making would be for prophets, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Here's my idea -- let's create some sort of charters for multi-national corporations that have essentially no responsibility or culpability even to the nation where they're originated (if that nation gets uppity, the corporation can easily move), remove any sort of penalties or regulations that keep them from making products wherever labor is the absolute cheapest, and then use extra-governmental bodies (combined with the full force or our national infrastructure, military, etc.) to make sure it's easy for them to do business in any part of the world, whether that part of the world wants them or not. Then, we'll use tax dollars from the people in that originating nation to subsidize all sorts of industries that don't need subsidies -- oil, energy, corporate farming, transportation, etc., big-box retail -- such that those companies are actually encouraged to work in unsustainable ways that hurt our nation's ecological and political security. But here's the final twist -- let's sell *stock* in those corporations (just for the sake of irony, we'll call them "public" corporations) but place only the flimsiest of requirements on those "owners," such that they take no real interest in the workings of the corporation they own. Indeed, in my scheme, these "owners" will trade their ownership stakes completely at their whim (electronically, many times a day if desired) on what they perceive to be the short-term changes in the stock price of that corporation, which in turn are based on metrics measured at levels that are *no greater than* three months. Thusly, the executives of those corporations will be encouraged to plan as little as possible for the long-term future of either the company or the country that chartered that company. Instead, they'll often trend toward the most destructive decisions possible, while at the same time making it such that any other goals or strategies -- more sustainability in manufacturing, lower-growth strategies to maintain long-term viability or more worker-friendly models to increase standards of living -- are actually made to seem *irresponsible* because they decrease "shareholder value." Indeed, under my system, we'll make "shareholder value" the top ethic; all other considerations pale. Here's where we reach *close* to your nirvana, Mark -- it'll be pretty much ONLY the investment bankers and corporate executives who will really benefit from this system because (a.) they have inside knowledge of its true workings and (b.) that knowledge enables them to profit whether the "public" corporation does well -- or fails completely. They have contingencies for either; in some cases, failure even benefits them more. They'll take care of their own profits and parachutes, largely at the expense of the people who get caught owning their stocks and the taxpayers the fund the governments that back them and bail them out. So, that's the flaw -- I don't *quite* cover your "remove people from the equation" desire entirely (after all, the "capitalists" do still make -- and often keep -- their cut). However, it does rather harshly minimize the *number* of people who profit in this scheme. That gets us pretty close to your goal, yes?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-25T17:22:31-06:00

ID

158351

Comment

Todd, you rock. This is not news, it just bears repeating. One quibble: While goods transportation probably does not require subsidy, I'm convinced that it's no longer possible to transport passengers and make any kind of profit at all on a reasonably consistent basis (let's say, five years in a row). So I think that sector does actually require subsidy. If we want to talk about automobile transportation, then it definitely both requires and receives substantial subsidies. The biggest subsidy it gets is that you do the labor involved every time you get behind the wheel of your car. (Here I am distinguishing transportation as an activity from the making of the vehicle and accoutrements that automotive transportation requires.)

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2010-06-25T17:32:06-06:00

ID

158352

Comment

Name-calling, Mark? Really? And you don't even label people correctly. Beyond that, what Todd said.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-06-25T18:46:04-06:00

ID

158353

Comment

Mark- lol Whoosh, that's the sound of your sarcasm flying right over their heads...LOL

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-25T23:08:08-06:00

ID

158354

Comment

"...marginalizing scientists as godless Bible-haters" You don't have to marginalize me. I admit freely that I am a godless Bible-hater. There is no such thing as a god, and the "Bible" is 2,000 - 4,000 year old superstitious pile of garbage.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-26T02:14:31-06:00

ID

158356

Comment

Bubba, don't be silly. Mark's brand of "sarcasm" is his superiority complex on steroids. It serves no purpose other than to belittle any opinions not his own without actually having to prove a damn thing. Ho hum (yawn).

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T13:08:34-06:00

ID

158357

Comment

Ronni's right about one thing...some of these posts definitely reek of superiority. And binary thinking, or something.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-26T13:31:14-06:00

ID

158358

Comment

Just can't resist, can you, Mark?

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T13:36:51-06:00

ID

158359

Comment

Mark- LOL Ain't that the truth.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-26T14:09:06-06:00

ID

158360

Comment

Ronni- And you don't belittle other peoples opinions?? Yeah right. LOL We all do.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-26T14:21:16-06:00

ID

158361

Comment

Bubba, come on. Is that your best shot? You stated that Mark's sarcasm went "over our heads." No one could possibly miss anything so glaringly obvious. It was about as subtle as a Mack truck. What I said is that sarcasm "serves no purpose other than to belittle ... opinions." Look it up. Sarcasm is by definition intended to ridicule and belittle. How about we debate on the facts? Is using facts to disprove an opinion "belittling" in your opinion? Is not agreeing with your opinion "belittling?" There are ways to debate without getting ugly. Resorting to name calling while dripping sarcasm (i.e., mocking, deriding, being scornful, holding in disdain) doesn't display intellectual superiority. It's not clever. It's not even interesting. Move on.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T16:28:49-06:00

ID

158362

Comment

Actually, Ronni, I was just making a little joke. That Todd chose to use it as an opportunity to post a 1000 word diatribe about what's wrong with the world was out of my control. Donna clearly assumed my "self-disclosure" was serious since she took such offense to the "name-calling", but then, how carefully she reads is also out of my control. But please, keep finding new ways of accusing me of villainy/idiocy...it's great entertainment.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-26T16:43:13-06:00

ID

158364

Comment

Mark, glad you're entertained. Odd that you would be in the way you say, but hey, whatever busts your buttons. Seems everyone but Bubba is just incapable of understanding your "humor." Now that is kinda funny, actually.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T17:07:28-06:00

ID

158365

Comment

Actually, I wrote my piece because (a.) Mark's "sarcasm" (or whatever it was) offered an opportunity to say something that I felt like saying and (b.) I actually thought it might illicit an interesting discussion with the self-proclaimed libertarian(s) around here. I guess not. (And it's probably off-topic anyway, although the rampant irresponsibility of multi-national corporations sort of fits the thread.) Tim: Yes! Thanks for your comment and kudos; I agree that subsidizing and encouraging transportation solutions that moved us further from fossil fuels would be a sensible thing to do. Indeed I feel strongly that an "Apollo Project" for renewable energy in this country would be the height of patriotism... and probably a good deal of fun.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-26T17:12:15-06:00

ID

158366

Comment

Ooooh, Todd, you mean debate on the facts? Yes, please! I'm with you on the "Apollo Project." In a column I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I brought up the fact that we managed to put a man on the moon because the country took a stand to make it happen. It's that kind of energy and committment that will get us off our dependence on oil. I think Haley Barbour recently said it couldn't be done because no one knows how to do it. Well, while that's not completely true, it's also the same old "we've always done it this way" thinking that made me see red when I was working in corporate America. This country has been talking about getting free of oil—foreign oil anyway—for 40 years. But we're stuck in rut thinking the only way out is to replace foreign oil with domestic oil. Simply put, this country doesn't have the oil reserves to do that even if we open every single point of opportunity for drilling. We have to find alternatives. We cannot "drill, baby, drill" our way out of this mess.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T17:44:21-06:00

ID

158367

Comment

Ronni- wasn't firing a shot. I found Mark's sarcasm very amusing and clever. Must be my sense of humor. If it didn't go over ya'lls head ya'll sure acted like. :) How can an opinion be disproven in a debate? Opinions aren't something that can be disproven or proven, they are what you believe. You might change someones opinion but disprove it, I don't thing so.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-26T18:06:29-06:00

ID

158368

Comment

I don't know, Bubba. If I have an "opinion" that the moon is made of green cheese, I'm guessing you might be able to disprove it. Maybe a better way to say it is that an opinion's underlying facts can be shown to be complete b.s. You're right that the holder of the opinion has to actually change his or her mind. My experience tells me that many people's opinions aren't based on facts to begin with, which makes them unlikely to change regardless of the facts.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T18:18:51-06:00

ID

158369

Comment

I'm out y'all. Carry on.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-26T18:31:27-06:00

ID

158370

Comment

Ronni- The moon's not made of cheese? Thanks for crushing my childhood beliefs.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-26T19:18:05-06:00

ID

158371

Comment

Sorry, I didn't realize Todd was looking for a serious debate. Normally, when one wants to debate a libertarian or their like, making a list of the various ways that inconsistent, shortsighted, ill-considered, overly complicated, and downright unjust government involvement and regulation have screwed up the world isn't the most effective argument. Heck, I didn't feel like I needed to involve myself in the debate -- Todd was making my point for me.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-26T20:36:31-06:00

ID

158372

Comment

Sorry, I didn't realize Todd was looking for a serious debate. Not debate, so much as discussion. I still occasionally cling to the naive hope that a website's comment functions might be used for intelligent discussion along with (or perhaps even instead of) the poo-flinging, even among those who disagree on broad philosophical strokes. Normally, when one wants to debate a libertarian or their like, making a list of the various ways that inconsistent, shortsighted, ill-considered, overly complicated, and downright unjust government involvement and regulation have screwed up the world isn't the most effective argument. Heck, I didn't feel like I needed to involve myself in the debate -- Todd was making my point for me. Actually, you're half-right... my "1000 word diatribe" has elements that criticize government, particularly one that tends to make grave errors in the way that it subsidizes large industries that, in my opinion, don't need it. But it's also a critique of something one might call corporatism and, generally speaking, the irresponsibility of laissez faire. The simple core of my thesis is that if this country held public corporations more accountable to something other than (or in addition to) shareholder value, then we'd all be better off. To do that, you would probably have to change something structural about the way we buy and sell stock in public corporations and the way their value to society is calculated. (I might start with requiring people who buy stock in corporations to hold it for a set amount of time, or vote their shares, or otherwise take some responsibility for the actions of the corporation.) In other words, I think there's a tweak in there that has nothing to do with communism, socialism or much of any -ism except a slightly more intelligent form of capitalism.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-06-27T13:18:56-06:00

ID

158374

Comment

@Todd Marxist

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-06-27T17:25:51-06:00