Wow! It’s Still 1979
This video is titled “The more oil spills change, the more they stay the same.”
It’s an eight-minute video by Rachel Maddow. Please bookmark it for later if you don’t have eight minutes to spare right now. It’ll be well worth it.
There was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 1979. You won’t believe the parallels between that spill and our current BP fiasco. The same negligence and equipment malfunctions that caused the spill, and — you won’t believe this — the exact fuckin’ SAME methods for TRYING to contain the oil spill.
Watch and seethe.
Labels: 1979 oil spill, Rachel Maddow, the more oil spills change the more they stay the same
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:43 PM
21 Comments:
Tom
Even the dispersant they use is the same, Corexit. We've learned nothing.
We sure did learn how to drill deeper though.
this was in much shallower water and took 10 months to cap
i dont expect obama to plug it - i expect to lead, and he is not.
I don't have all the info, but why did Obama refuse assistance from the Dutch re: this latest spill? I have been told that they were ready and willing to lend their expertise, but Obama said no thanks. Mistake? Like I said, I don't have all the info on the matter. Thought someone else might clue me in.
Nothing's changed in the 20 years I've been doing it except they did come up with an oil water seperator that won't work on this spill since they used all that Corexit.
Tim: We can drill deeper and get more oil faster. Nothing else matters.
Distributorcap: You're right; Obama needs to lead. He's looking more and more like Michael Dukakis.
Kate: I hadn't heard about that, but it's a huge mistake. Obama needs to do everything possible and accept any and all offers of help.
Demeur: You're right; nothing has changed.
Kate, Obama has not allowed outside foreign help because foreign vessels are prevented from getting involved due to the federal Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which mandates that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported in U.S.-built, U.S. owned and U.S. manned ships.
President Obama can issue a waiver, but evidently has no intention of doing so with regards to the "Jones Act", as it is named.
One of the few things Bush did after Katrina was to temporarily waive the Jones act so that foreign help could come in and assist the gulf region. Evidently Obama would rather protect American union jobs then fix the problem more rapidly.
Yep, it is 1979 all over again! We even have a Carter clone in the White House. With any luck the similarities will continue and he will be followed by a Reaganesque president after his first term.
TP: Thanks for the info; I didn't know that. Aside from your taking every opportunity to bash unions and blame them for every one of America's problems, I agree that Obama should waive the Jones Act and do whatever else is necessary to get all the help we can get.
A "Reaganesque" president after Obama? And who would that be? I don't see anyone out there who can unite Middle America and the Far Right the way Reagan did. If I'm forgetting somebody, let me know.
Mr. Harper, glad to see that you are pragmatic when it comes to doing what is necessary to help the problem by waiving the Jones Act.
As for a Reaganesque candidate on the horizon... you are right... I've got nothing for you currently.
TP, Who needs Reaganesque when we have Rush. His latest low is doing the same Beckian "Daddy, Daddy" mockery of children.
These guys, your "voices of conservatism" are evil. They represent the greedy, the powerful, the wealthy and the arrogant, the Dark side. Vermin.
The light beckons. Turn from the forces of darkness.
Dubya, what Beck did was not cool. He admitted that he was way over the line and apologized for it. This doesn't excuse his actions there, but that is more than what we see from many on the left.
Further, why is the defense of freedom, self reliance, and the Constitution considered as the "Dark Side", sir?
I rather think trying to make more people dependent upon government so as to retain and expand one's political power is more in line with what an evil emperor would do.
:)
Maddow has been doing an excellent job on this catastrophe and the response to it. Obviously, R&D on making deepwater drilling safer and dealing with blowouts, leaks and other problems won't give the bottom line its quarterly boost, won't ensure big raises and bonuses and won't keep share prices high and climbing. So, obviously, people who are all about the money will consider safety outlays so much unwanted distraction and expense.
That's why government must get and stay on top of industries like Big Oil, requiring them to do the right thing and coming down on them like bad news straight from hell's hottest hole when they don't.
T. Paine wrote: ". . .Obama has not allowed outside foreign help because foreign vessels are prevented from getting involved due to Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which mandates that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported in U.S.-built, U.S. owned and U.S. manned ships."
Forgive my being so slow to catch on, but I don't see what that has to do with the Dutch lending their expertise? The obvious purpose of the Merchant Marine Act provision was to protect domestic shipping companies and the jobs of merchant seamen. I don't see the Dutch coming in and hauling cargo between New Orleans and Newport News, or anything like that.
Re: Bush's waiving the Jones Act. This is the first I've heard about that. I distinctly recall Bush rebuffing teams of Swedish air-sea rescue doctors, paramedics, pilots and their choppers, when they offered to come help in New Orleans. The Bush administration also refused admission to a group of about 75 Florida swamp buggy owners and their crafts, when they offered to come help with the rescues, paying their own way.
What foreign individuals or groups do you believe came in to help in New Orleans and what is your source for that?
Why o Why am I not surprised?
I however can think of numerous people who can fuck it all up like Reagan did.
T.Paine. Thank you.
TP,
News Flash! MONEY is power.
It buys and corrupts government. Rush advocates ONLY for those powerful Big Money interests. As if that is not sinister enough, he and Beck have to smear children and LIE to do so. (See Long List of verifiable LIES Previously Provided)
As if that has ANYTHING to do with the Constitution...
Here's Rush's "respect" for the Constitution, back when he defended Bush/Cheney warrentless illegal surveillance:
“Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead! If you are dead and pushing up daisies, if you’re sucking dirt inside a casket, do you know what your civil liberties are worth? Zilch, zero, nada.” –Rush Limbaugh
Be afraid! Give up your civil liberties so the police state can protect you! NOW!
Give me a break. The ACLU are the ones defending our civil liberties and Constitutional rights. You are brainwashed if you think those right wing authoritarian propagandists give a damn about anything but their money and power.
Servants of Mammon, every hypocritical one of them. Not cool, indeed.
Anderson, I can only assume that the Jones Act must be waived for foreign vessels to do work in our waters, such as skimming oil, setting up booms etc. That is where the restriction is still valid unless waived, such is my guess.
As for Bush doing this during Katrina, I don't recall where I heard that information at the time. It was reported in the aftermath of the huricane. I do seem to recall some of the same restrictions you mentioned initially after the storm though.
Dubya, while I can appreciate your concern about our civil liberties under the Bush administration, why is this seemingly not an issue for you under Obama's?
He has most of the same tenents of the Patriot Act in place, he has NOT closed down Gitmo, he has asked for the authority to monitor emails and internet of ALL citizens without warrant(whereas Bush only wanted warrantless taps on people that were communicating with known/suspected terrorists).
You seemingly have a double standard, sir. Either that or you have not heard about these excesses of the Obama administration from your chosen news sources.
Further, the ACLU is a farce and is nothing more than a leftist special interest group.
Lastly, I guess mammon is only good when it is a resource of the enlightened left to control and/or confiscate for the "common good".
If money is earned by a conservative, it must have been gotten through evil or backhanded means, and therefore they are not deserving of it, right?
Looking to a benign federal government to take care of all of our problems and needs is a great idea. Look how well it has worked since Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and now Obama have increased the length and breadth of those tentacles.
You would be better off to look to your own affairs rather than to assume that the benevolent Dear Leader Obama will make all well for you.
The ACLU is not what your propagandists say it is. They will never admit the ACLU is on their side on the National ID issue, as well as others. (Bet you didn't know that.) They must be demonized.
Money is power and power corrupts. You can whine all you want about the nobility of right wing wealth, It is a fiction. Greed is their virtue. Exploitation of workers, opposing minimum wages, and off-shoring jobs is their style, and buying politicians is their method of corruption. You can blindly deny any of this, but it amounts to the same lunacy as calling Obama a Marxist. It is a madness limited to the radical right mentality.
As I said, it is their "character". I noticed how quickly you dodged the topic of Rush and Beck and their child smearing mockery. You responded to my example of Limbaugh's fascist thinking with a baseless accusation that I condone the same behavior from Obama. I didn't see you rush to defend or condemn Rush. I take it you agree with him. Obama has proven himself to be un-American with his embrace of Bush’s state secrecy and disdain for law and civil liberties.
Once again you take the typical right wing tactics of ignoring the facts, changing the subject and leveling accusations.
By their reckless comparisons of Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Marxists, Communists etc., Limbaugh and Beck and the radical right are showing their inner fascism. They devote all their energy to accusing others of Marxism, treason, or any other baseless charge in order to incite anger and hatred for political opposition. The Reich Wing must paint political adversaries as Commies and mortal enemies in order to advance their agenda. This is the tactic European fascists of the last century mastered. We see it all the time on Fox, and gullible Americans buy into it completely. Just like “Good Germans" of the 1930's they join in on the hate and scapegoating. Liberals and progressives are the Jews to the American Reich. Just substitute the word "Jew" for liberal or progressive in these propagandists’ language and it will become clear where they learned their formula.
If you supported Bush’s wars and his anti-democratic authoritarian rule by Big Money, you are a fascist as well. In fact, by your labeling a moderate corporatist such as Obama as a Marxist, you have adopted the fascist thinking. You are already there.
“Daddy, Daddy, Fix the hole, Daddy,” Your heroes are fascist liars and bullies. As I said previously, you could be just another wealthy corporatist pushing the propaganda. I would be tempted to ask, “Have you no decency or shame?” But I prefer to pity you as a poor indoctrinated cult member. Only you know which of the two you are. Either way, your side is cloaked in anger, hatred, greed, and dishonesty. You vote for the most corrupt politicians your Big Money masters choose for you. Unfortunately most of the rest of us are stuck voting for the almost as corrupt politicians that Big Money has chosen for us. There’s a pattern here and it ain’t democracy. Since Reagan, Big Money always wins.
In case you missed it last time I posted it:
Here are the fruits of conservatism in US Government since Reagan.
Average Pretax Income In Dollars
Bottom 20% / Top 1%
1980- $15,500 - $504,200
1985- $14,800 - $675,900
1992- $15,500 - $817,700
2000- $17,100 - $1,508,500
2006- $17,200 - $1,743,700
Share Of Income (Percent)
Pretax Income
Bottom 20% / Top 1% / Top 10%
1980- 5.7 % - 9.1% - 30.5%
1985 - 4.8 % - 11.5%
1992- 4.4 % - 12.3%
2000- 4.0 % - 17.8%
2006- 3.9 % - 18.8% - 41.6%
Most Americans are on the losing end of your belief system.
Kate and TP,
You are both wrong. Obama has accepted help from Mexico, Holland, and Norway.
Rush says otherwise, what does that tell us?
As for me, it wasn’t that many years ago when I was in the service and making wages below the poverty level. Rather than wait to see what the government would do to help me, I WORKED and got an education, and then got a better job so that I now pay in taxes what I used to make as my wage in the military (and then some). What I choose to do with that wealth is to take care of my own family, give to charitable relief through my church, support a poor child in the Philippines and one in Mexico, donate my time for pro-life causes, donate my time by collecting food and goods for the poor of Salt Lake, as well as organizing an annual bike rally with the proceeds going to support children burn victims so that they can go to camp as part of their rehabilitation. I also am typically very hesitant to talk about what I do to help, because it is NOT about me. It is my responsibility as a Christian of now modest means to help my fellow man. I am not rich, but I do try to do what I can to help. If only everyone would do so, especially those on the left, instead of insisting that taxes be raised and the government be the caretaker of communities. (regardless of whom their community organizer might be.) The only reason I shared this information is that I didn’t appreciate the characterization of being a “possible greedy wealthy corporatist” when I am a middle-class engineer working for a wireless telecommunications company. I got where I am by working very hard and I have shared my time and money that I have been blessed with because I CHOOSE to do so.
Further Dubya, you can see that the leftwing tripe about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes is just that; tripe! If you care to see the facts, I did a posting last year with information I had gotten from the NON-PARTISAN taxfoundation.org that laid them out perfectly. http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/09/rich-are-paying-their-share-and-so-am-i.html
Basically the top 1% of wage earners in our country pay 40% of the federal tax burden. The top 25% of wage earners pay 86.59% of that tax burden. The bottom 50% of wage earners in America pay 2.89% of the federal tax burden. Don’t tell me that the poor are being exploited as far as their taxation goes. They are indeed being exploited because of their dependency upon government, but not because of their taxation!
Lastly, I do not know but I suspect the recent foreign help has come because Obama has indeed NOW requested it. Previously he had not waived the Jones act, and perhaps he still has not. He simply may have disregarded the dictates of another federal law so as to not upset his union contributors and then unofficially asked for foreign assistance. I don’t know nor care as long as we can get some help to curb this disaster.
Dubya, for all the good this will do I should just talk to my walls again; however, for the sake of trying to explain things with facts and reason I will make the likely-futile attempt at rebutting your diatribe, sir.
First, there is not any inherent nobility in wealth, whether it is right wing wealth or left wing (George Soros-type) wealth. What one does with his wealth is what makes it evil or noble. Are there abuses of wealth for personal gain and greed on the right? Absolutely, just as there is on the left.
A good example of this is the left’s darling, George Soros. His ties and money helping the so-called American Center for Progress are absolutely detrimental to American principles as our Founders intended. Soros has by his exploits already exploited foreign currencies to line his personal coffers. He is doing so now by divesting himself of American Dollars and buying gold instead. Smart move financially, but in the sums he does his transactions in, this sways world markets. What does Soros do with his money? Well he is recently buying interest in Brazilian deep water drilling. (Deeper than the Gulf Horizon one.) And this after his buddy Obama states his desire for a complete drilling moratorium in the United States. So who is the one using wealth for their own personal gain? I guarantee you that this is a phenomena that is common to all political persuasions, sir.
Further, your lack of understanding of basic economics is showing, Dubya, as are most of those on the left. By raising minimum wage rates, you end up hurting small businesses which employ a majority of our nation’s citizens. They typically cannot hire as many people at the higher rates, and often times have to fire people that they can no longer afford. This hurts the poorest of our citizens as they now are unemployed and dependent upon the tax payers for their livelihood. And let’s not forget that many unions have their pay scales tied to being a large increment above minimum wage, so that if minimum wages are increased, so are the union members via their contracts. That is just smart Democrat politics there! Raise minimum wages, increase unemployment thereby making more constituents dependent upon Democrat government largesse while improving pay for union contributors.
The problem is exacerbated by certain greedy businesses now exploiting illegals for cheaper labor that will work under the table for less than minimum wage or by moving their companies offshore for cheaper labor pools because of the very foolish minimum wage increases that the progressives has advocated for the common good.
As for Beck, I noted previously that he apologized and was wrong for doing what he did. Guess you missed that. As for Rush, I didn’t have any evidence of that other than your saying so. If Rush is similarly guilty, then he is similarly wrong and should apologize.
I won’t go back into the specifics of why Obama is indeed a Marxist, since you didn’t pay attention to the specific examples of why the term fits as a description of his actions, and not just as a pejorative meant to smear his rock-strong character. Obama has done many of the EXACT same things that the Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez has done in his usurpation of private companies, ruling by executive order, and appointing un-accountable deputies (czars) that report only to him. The term is accurate, even if you prefer not to acknowledge it.
TP:
I'm glad to hear you have a conscience and contribute to some worthy causes. And you even understand greedy businesses, fellow conservatives, exploit illegal workers and offshore our jobs.
Go ahead and tell me I don't understand economics while you side against fair workers' wages. All your republican talking points still don't refute the basic fact that Big Money corrupts our government.
Big Money controls the right wing agenda. It's not rocket science or complex economics. It is the mix of money, power and human nature. I've lived long enough to learn this. And the rich and powerful have never had it better with both taxes and income. They are beneficiaries of the "trickle up" economy of corporatism and a bought Congress. The middle and lower classes have been measurably taking losses.
Everything else you throw out is mere distraction from this truth.
So far no apology from Limbaugh, and Beck's "apology" was worded with a slimey accusation of Obama, "In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism..."
Yeah, that makes the kids feel better.
Like I said, they are hate mongering, money-soaked jerks. Filthy rich has never been a more appropriate term than for these mean spirited guys.
One more time: A corporatist is NOT a Marxist. A Marxist is NOT a corporatist. Sheesh!
Post a Comment
<< Home