Reply With Quote
So? Problems are normal.
More Bush-era cronyism rearing its ugly head. MMS got waaay to buddy-buddy with the people it was supposed to regulate.
The current administration shares a good chunk of the blame for not getting off its ass and fixing the problem.
Good God, how long will it take to cleanout Bush-era incompetence?
Good job, Brownie.
So? Problems are normal.
The well that blew was approved to commence drilling on March 9, 2009 by Obama's Interior Secretary.
I guess, Rahm Emanuel staying free at a BP consultant-owned apartment and BP being a charter member of the cap and trade lobby don't count as cronyism in your book.
Good God, how long will it take for you to figure out Obama's an incompetent and corrupt politician?
I think the BP-Obama ties have been vastly overstated by the right in the normal self-serving way that you always attempt to distort grains of truth to suit your narratives.
That said, it is something we should be concerned about, no matter who is doing it. IF the Obama adminsitration really does put any given corporate/industry needs above those of the American people, then that is a bad thing and should stop.
I noticed you were decidedly silent when Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy. Why did this stuff not concern YOU then? Hmmm?
So now you want to go after ever politician who received lobbying money or favors from BP?
Source WatchThe BP political action committee (PAC) gave $219,500 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans. [13] A summary of the BP PAC data is below, from Open Secrets:
2010
Total Spent - $173,781
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $75,550 (42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans)
2008
Total Spent - $619,255
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $198,500 (41% to Democrats, 59% to Republicans)
2006
Total Spent - $601,696
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $219,500 (34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans)
2004
Total Spent - $678,337
Contributions to Federal Candidates - $220,499 (38% to Democrats, 62% to Republicans)
BP is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $122,300 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Rep. Landrieu, for her part, has been supportive of the oil industry on energy, war and climate bills.[2] (Add information from more recent reports)
Dammit Yoni, how can you be so dumb?
It's only cronyism if it happened under Bush's watch, or can be traced to Cheney.
[I raise my hand]... Teacher, what authority did Cheney have to allow that to happen?
link please...
What authority did Cheney have to allow torture to happen? Yeah, dictators are like that....
I don't recall that thread. Who claimed coal-industry lobbyists literally wrote public policy. But, more germane to the current issue, to what catastrophic disaster did it lead?
Hmm. Have to do some digging.
There was some administration policy that was literally drawn word-for-word from a position paper written by a lobbyist for the coal industry, if memory serves.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...rgy_Task_Force
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4830129/
Just to refresh your memory.
Pretty much the entire energy policy was driven by meetings with energy industry executives, with little thought to what might be best for the public at large. Cheney seems to have confused what was good for a group of companies with the public good.
Feel free to do some reading on your own though.
Getting Cheney's Ear
Cheney's Energy Task Force Records Revealed
I was unable to find the exact story regarding the copy-paste job from the lobbyist into the final do ent produced by the Task Force.There was one meeting with environmentalists on April 13th, 2001, which was about two months into the work of the task force. And by that time, the task force staff had at least 40-some-odd meetings with a whole range of industry groups, lawmakers, et cetera.
And what we were told for this story is that, at some point, some of the staff realized that it might not look so good if they didn't talk to environmentalists. And so they kind of hastily put together a meeting about two months into the process and invited the Sierra Club and some other people in the environmental world to come and talk to the task force.
By the account of several of those people at that meeting, it was a fairly perfunctory meeting and I think what's quite telling is that at that point, a draft of the report was basically already done. So it doesn't seem that this was particularly strong input into the process.
As for "what authority" I would guess that Bush simply tapped the former oil industry executive to head up the task force. The answer to your question is the authority of the president.
Unsurprisingly, a do ent that heavily favored fossil fuel industries resulted.
Shocker.
Not sure what the poitn of your question was, TBH. ???
I take that back...
Sounds more like an exercise in group-think than good policy making, doesn't it?In the sessions they held while they worked on the plan, Cheney and his staff generally heard a message reinforcing their own mind-set: Free markets, fewer pollution rules and expanded development of traditional fuels.
Using less energy and energy in different forms were notions mentioned but not emphasized. "What do you expect?" asked one energy industry insider whose colleagues met with Cheney. "These people make their living from coal and natural gas and nuclear power. Do you think they're going to push for solar and wind?"
The influences [of the energy industry] are evident in the final product.
The report focuses on easing regulation for oil and gas drilling, coal-fired generators, nuclear power plants and transmission of electricity, while providing energy assistance to poor households. Though the plan also backs alternative fuels and conservation, it gives the most support to increasing the supply of traditional sources of energy.
One passage adopts word for word a proposal on global warming from the U.S. Energy Assn.'s National Energy Strategy, which is dominated by trade groups. The section suggests encouraging other countries to build factories with clean technologies sold by U.S. companies.
My point was the Cheney didn't authorize . I responded to:
He could advise, but didn't have that power.Cheney let coal-industry lobbyists literally write public policy
Agreed.
145 million gallons leaked and counting
http://www.wlox.com/Global/category.asp?C=186625
country=hen house
fox=giant coorporations
government=dog guarding the hen house
the fox gave too many steaks to the dog and now the fox has been caught stealing the hens.
............while the dog was pigging out on the steaks
anybody calling out Rahm Emanuel is antisemetic.
No way around it you cowards.
The Wired article is super short, dude. If you click it, you won't need me to read it for you. You'll be practically done right when you look at it.
Who, please?
Share the links, please. I gave you mine.
Huh?
This ain't no criminal court, counselor.
Go away with yourself and your criminal standards of proof. This is a current events forum. Persuasion rules, not proof.
Please catch up.
Nightmare about the pipe being spewing in several places, eroding the sand/gravel around it, failing, the huge BOP falling over. Also explains why perhaps they aren't trying to put any pressure on the topmost flow, because that would cause more to flow from the holes in the pipe lower down accelerating the erosion and BOP fallover
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble
btw, can' find it now, but BP is apparently the largest supplier of fuel to the US military.
In tune with the headline, and gaining notoriety:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
