Today, in an article in the Austin American-Statesman entitled "Arizona law could chill police work, chiefs say," the author of the article referred to Arizona S.B. 1070 as "... the new Arizona law requiring police to request documents of anyone they detain and have a suspicion that they are in the country illegally."
That is not what the law requires!
Nothing ... nothing ... in Arizona S.B. 1070 says anything about requesting "documents" of anyone! It doesn't require anyone to carry documents. In fact, it doesn't say anything about documents. All this "papers, please" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. Arizona S.B. 1070 does not make it a crime or allow anyone to be arrested because they can't prove that they're in the country legally. That simply isn't what it does!
Once again, here's what the law actually says, if anyone is actually interested in what it actually says:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
It requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt, ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
They could "request documents," but the law does not requre that they "request documents." All they have to do is make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Like the Border Patrol does now.
I was out in Big Bend recently. I was stopped at a Border Patrol check point. I was asked, "Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Are you an American citizen?" Then I was allowed to proceed. The Border Patrol officer who questioned me made a reasonable attempt to determine my immigration status, when he probably didn't even have any reason to suspect that I was in the country illegally. And he didn't ask me for any documents.
Clearly, Arizona S.B. 1070 is a law which can and almost surely will be used to discriminate against people of dark skin color or those with "foreign" accents. It is a bad law.
But, it is a bad law for what it does say and the argument ought to be about what it does say. Let's stop claiming things about the law that simply are not true.
For goodness sake, the bill isn't that long. Someone writing a newspaper article about the bill surely can take the time to at least read it. And if you read that bill and still think it requires police to "request documents," then - I apologize if this is judgemental - but you probably don't have the intelligence necessary to write newspaper articles.
If you claim it requires police to "request documents," when you know that it doesn't, then you're a liar.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Best Health Care System in the World
I frequently hear acquaintances opine that America has the best health care system in the world. I'm pretty sure I've heard some national elected officials say the same thing, though I cannot quote them. I'm sure enough, in fact, that I'm not going to Google them to get the quotations.
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Bobby Jindal, Hypocrite
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, delivered the Republican Party's response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address on February 24, 2009, here are a few of the things he said:
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
Friday, May 21, 2010
This Is What I'm Talking About
In an earlier article, I argued that we ... and by "we" I mean all us Americans ... need to be honest about what Arizona Senate Bill 1070 says. I posted a link to the actual bill. It's not that hard to find and not that long to read. Anyone writing a news article about the bill should, at the very least, have read the actual bill.
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
"One-fifth of the oil captured"
I hate to have to keep coming back to this, but it is important to keep the issue at the forefront, and to continue to highlight the duplicity of British Petroleum.
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Compromise
When the delegates to the convention that produced the United States Constitution arrived, many of them didn't want a new constitution at all. In fact, some of the states' delegations had orders from their state legislatures to oppose a new constitution and support only amending the Articles of Confederation.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Ambition and Avarice
More Benjamin Franklin:
"There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. ... And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits."
"There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. ... And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits."
Friday, May 14, 2010
Arizona's New Immigration Law
I hate to write about this, but I have to. As important as it is, immigration is just not one of the issues I'm very passionate about.
When discussing public issues, it is important - essential - to get the facts right. I have often written about how those with whom I disagree have, intentionally or unintentionally, misstated facts in an effort to support their conclusions. As Senator Daniel Moynihan once said, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Let me be clear. I would not have voted for Arizona's new immigration law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070. If I were given the opportunity I would vote for its repeal. I think it is misguided. I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perrry. It would not work well in Texas. I don't think it's going to work very well in Arizona, either.
But, those who are opposed to the new law have been guilty of some pretty heavy-duty misleading about what it says and what it does. When one or both sides of an argument are using "facts" that aren't true, it makes it pretty much impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not allow the police to stop or arrest someone for "being brown." That's just not true.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not require police to arrest someone if they suspect them of being in the United States illegally. That's just not true.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not require people, legal immigrants or otherwise, to carry papers proving their legal presence, at least not any more than they were required to do so already, if at all. That's just not true.
Now, Arizona S.B. 1070 does do something that really concerns me, but it isn't any of the things opponents have been claiming it does when it really doesn't. What it does do that's troubling is impose a requirement on police officers to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine someone's immigration status under some fairly restricted circumstances. What is says, on the point, is this:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
I say that the requirement is subject to some pretty restricted circumstances because, first, there has to be "lawful contact." Second, there has to be "reasonable suspicion ... that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present." Third, the "reasonable attempt" is only required "when practicable." And, finally, it only has to be a "reasonable" attempt. There is no out and out obligation, under any circumstance, to absolutely determine, beyond a doubt, anyone's immigration status under any circumstances.
And - let's be honest and clear - it doesn't require the police to arrest them, even if they determine that they are an illegal immigrant.
But, it does require them to investigate. The circumstances when the requirement comes into play are very limited, but there is a requirement to investigate.
Yes, there is another part of the law that gives the public the right to sue an officer if they fail to make a "reasonable attempt," but the officer is indemnified, both as to damages and as to trial expenses, unless he acted in bad faith. So, the risk of an individual officer suffering any sort of damage as a result of such a suit is pretty small, unless he just set out to violate the law on purpose.
But, it still troubles me, because it represents the Arizona legislature's attempt to infringe on the traditional, ancient, and important concept of the policeman's discretion.
Extending way back to the common law of England (adopted in our U.S. Constitution, by the way) it has always been within the discretion of the police whether to enforce a particular law in a particular circumstance. If a police officer witnesses a murder with his own eyes, it is now and has always been (even in Arizona) within his discretion whether to make an arrest or not. He was free to let the murderer go, if he decided that was what he wanted to do. He certainly had the discretion to decide whether or not to question a suspected murderer, or whether to even investigate the report of a murder. This was and is the case with any crime.
Except, in Arizona, it's not the case anymore with the crime of being in the country illegally. Now, the policeman has no discretion about whether to investigate such a crime, if the facts do fit the very restrictive conditions of S.B. 1070. He is required, by the legislature, to investigate.
It is not a big intrusion on police discretion, but it is an intrusion, nonetheless. In Texas, where the separation of the three branches of government is enshrined in our state constitution, such a law would almost surely be held to be unconstitutional as a violation of the concept of separation of powers. In Texas, the legislature can make something a crime, but they can't tell the executive how or even whether to enforce that criminal law. That's what Arizona S.B. 1070 does that troubles me, and it's a small crack in a very, very important door.
It's an important door because it protects the individual from a branch of government intent on running over individual rights. The legislature can make an unfair law, but they can't make the executive branch enforce it. It is one of the geniuses of the American system of government that it usually takes at least two branches of government, and sometimes all three, to trample our rights. So, this little crack is important.
Nonetheless, opponents the Arizona law - so many of you my friends and for whom I have such deep respect - facts matter. Truth matters. I agree that the new Arizona law is a bad idea. It is, as they say in Texas, "a bad ol' bill." But, attack it for what it says, and what it does, not for stuff that's made up about it that isn't true. Do that, then we can continue to hold the other side to the truth when they start lying. You know, like "death panels" in the health care bill.
Read it yourself: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
When discussing public issues, it is important - essential - to get the facts right. I have often written about how those with whom I disagree have, intentionally or unintentionally, misstated facts in an effort to support their conclusions. As Senator Daniel Moynihan once said, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Let me be clear. I would not have voted for Arizona's new immigration law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070. If I were given the opportunity I would vote for its repeal. I think it is misguided. I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perrry. It would not work well in Texas. I don't think it's going to work very well in Arizona, either.
But, those who are opposed to the new law have been guilty of some pretty heavy-duty misleading about what it says and what it does. When one or both sides of an argument are using "facts" that aren't true, it makes it pretty much impossible to reach any kind of consensus.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not allow the police to stop or arrest someone for "being brown." That's just not true.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not require police to arrest someone if they suspect them of being in the United States illegally. That's just not true.
Arizona S.B. 1070 does not require people, legal immigrants or otherwise, to carry papers proving their legal presence, at least not any more than they were required to do so already, if at all. That's just not true.
Now, Arizona S.B. 1070 does do something that really concerns me, but it isn't any of the things opponents have been claiming it does when it really doesn't. What it does do that's troubling is impose a requirement on police officers to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine someone's immigration status under some fairly restricted circumstances. What is says, on the point, is this:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
I say that the requirement is subject to some pretty restricted circumstances because, first, there has to be "lawful contact." Second, there has to be "reasonable suspicion ... that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present." Third, the "reasonable attempt" is only required "when practicable." And, finally, it only has to be a "reasonable" attempt. There is no out and out obligation, under any circumstance, to absolutely determine, beyond a doubt, anyone's immigration status under any circumstances.
And - let's be honest and clear - it doesn't require the police to arrest them, even if they determine that they are an illegal immigrant.
But, it does require them to investigate. The circumstances when the requirement comes into play are very limited, but there is a requirement to investigate.
Yes, there is another part of the law that gives the public the right to sue an officer if they fail to make a "reasonable attempt," but the officer is indemnified, both as to damages and as to trial expenses, unless he acted in bad faith. So, the risk of an individual officer suffering any sort of damage as a result of such a suit is pretty small, unless he just set out to violate the law on purpose.
But, it still troubles me, because it represents the Arizona legislature's attempt to infringe on the traditional, ancient, and important concept of the policeman's discretion.
Extending way back to the common law of England (adopted in our U.S. Constitution, by the way) it has always been within the discretion of the police whether to enforce a particular law in a particular circumstance. If a police officer witnesses a murder with his own eyes, it is now and has always been (even in Arizona) within his discretion whether to make an arrest or not. He was free to let the murderer go, if he decided that was what he wanted to do. He certainly had the discretion to decide whether or not to question a suspected murderer, or whether to even investigate the report of a murder. This was and is the case with any crime.
Except, in Arizona, it's not the case anymore with the crime of being in the country illegally. Now, the policeman has no discretion about whether to investigate such a crime, if the facts do fit the very restrictive conditions of S.B. 1070. He is required, by the legislature, to investigate.
It is not a big intrusion on police discretion, but it is an intrusion, nonetheless. In Texas, where the separation of the three branches of government is enshrined in our state constitution, such a law would almost surely be held to be unconstitutional as a violation of the concept of separation of powers. In Texas, the legislature can make something a crime, but they can't tell the executive how or even whether to enforce that criminal law. That's what Arizona S.B. 1070 does that troubles me, and it's a small crack in a very, very important door.
It's an important door because it protects the individual from a branch of government intent on running over individual rights. The legislature can make an unfair law, but they can't make the executive branch enforce it. It is one of the geniuses of the American system of government that it usually takes at least two branches of government, and sometimes all three, to trample our rights. So, this little crack is important.
Nonetheless, opponents the Arizona law - so many of you my friends and for whom I have such deep respect - facts matter. Truth matters. I agree that the new Arizona law is a bad idea. It is, as they say in Texas, "a bad ol' bill." But, attack it for what it says, and what it does, not for stuff that's made up about it that isn't true. Do that, then we can continue to hold the other side to the truth when they start lying. You know, like "death panels" in the health care bill.
Read it yourself: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
More Oil, More Money
When they were trying to get permission to build the well, they said, in writing, that it was almost impossible for there to be any problem.
Then, there was this explosion. And a fire. And eleven people killed. But, as horrible as that was, at least there wasn't any oil leaking. They said. Then, the rig capsized and sank and the pipe that extended almost a mile down into the water to the ocean floor broke. But, they had this "state-of-the-art," fail-safe, blowout preventer. Thank goodness for that!
Only, the blowout preventer didn't prevent a blowout. We don't know why, but this handy-dandy, super-duper device called a blowout preventer that was supposed to make it okay to drill off-shore didn't work. The well blew out and started gushing oil into the sea.
But, at least it was only 1000 barrels of oil a day. And, besides, British Petroleum was responsible for taking care of the problem, so things were still pretty much under control. Except for those eleven souls who had been killed. But, you know, except for that, things were pretty much under control. Still.
Only, it turned out that it wasn't 1000 barrels of oil a day, it was really 5000 barrels of oil a day, being spewed into the ocean and forming an oil slick as big as one of our U.S. states, floating toward some of the most environmentally sensitive coast line in the United States. It wasn't supposed to happen, but it was happening.
So, they tried to use remote-controlled submarines to get the blowout preventer to do what it was supposed to do and cut off the well. Something never before tried at that depth. Failed. Then they tried to get a dome the size of a four story building lowered down over one of the three leaks. Never before tried at that depth. If it worked, it wouldn't stop the flow, it would just make it less. Only two open leaks, instead of three. Failed. Probably for the same reason that the well blew out in the first place - methane gas at depths so cold that it reacts in funny ways that it doesn't do at surface temperatures. Like expanding as it rises up the pipe toward the drilling rig. And forming icy crystals that clog up your containment dome. I mean, who knew?
To be honest, it is this part I'm probably most puzzled about. When we first sent men to the moon, we'd never been there before. We didn't know what we would find or how it would affect the humans and equipment that we sent to the surface of the moon. But, our scientists studied the possibilities, and when we got there, they had predicted everything we found. Accurately. But, petroleum scientists can't anticipate the behavior of methane gas at cold temperatures? Really?
So, now they're going to try a smaller unit, like a containment dome, but not the same. Smaller. But even if it works, it won't work as well as the containment dome that didn't. Work. And if this smaller unit doesn't work, they're going to try shooting chunks of golf balls and old rope into the pipe in the hope that might clog it up and slow the flow. Really? Chunks of golf balls and old rope? That's the answer of British Petroleum? I'm no petroleum scientist, but that seems ... um ... desperate. And primitive. And unlikely to succeed.
So, that leaves us with this "side" well that they're drilling hoping that they will drill into the blown out well and be able to shoot mud and concrete into the well and stop it up. Another ... oh ... 70 days, by my count, if they don't have any problems at all. Not too reassuring, given their record so far.
So, today we learn, according to the Austin American-Statesman, that "[n]early 100 industry standards set by the American Petroleum Institute are included in the nation's offshore operating regulations." Now, that in itself is not necessarily bad. The standards set by the American Petroleum Institute could be good standards. I don't know.
What caught my eye was the reasoning offered by the American Petroleum Institute for why their standards ought to be the regulatory standards for the industry. It wasn't, as I thought it might be, that their standards were good ones. It was "... that its standards are better for the industry's bottom line and make it easier to operate offshore than if the Minerals Management Seervice set the rules."
Well, um, yes. Okay? Isn't that exactly the problem? Do these people have no shame? Or are they just stupid? Or maybe, more likely, they are very smart, but they think the rest of us are stupid.
Let us put their defense in slightly different words. "It's good that we make the rules that regulate our industry, because it's better for us. Those rules are okay, because they allow us to make a lot of money, even though they cause exactly the problem we're facing now."
Then, there was this explosion. And a fire. And eleven people killed. But, as horrible as that was, at least there wasn't any oil leaking. They said. Then, the rig capsized and sank and the pipe that extended almost a mile down into the water to the ocean floor broke. But, they had this "state-of-the-art," fail-safe, blowout preventer. Thank goodness for that!
Only, the blowout preventer didn't prevent a blowout. We don't know why, but this handy-dandy, super-duper device called a blowout preventer that was supposed to make it okay to drill off-shore didn't work. The well blew out and started gushing oil into the sea.
But, at least it was only 1000 barrels of oil a day. And, besides, British Petroleum was responsible for taking care of the problem, so things were still pretty much under control. Except for those eleven souls who had been killed. But, you know, except for that, things were pretty much under control. Still.
Only, it turned out that it wasn't 1000 barrels of oil a day, it was really 5000 barrels of oil a day, being spewed into the ocean and forming an oil slick as big as one of our U.S. states, floating toward some of the most environmentally sensitive coast line in the United States. It wasn't supposed to happen, but it was happening.
So, they tried to use remote-controlled submarines to get the blowout preventer to do what it was supposed to do and cut off the well. Something never before tried at that depth. Failed. Then they tried to get a dome the size of a four story building lowered down over one of the three leaks. Never before tried at that depth. If it worked, it wouldn't stop the flow, it would just make it less. Only two open leaks, instead of three. Failed. Probably for the same reason that the well blew out in the first place - methane gas at depths so cold that it reacts in funny ways that it doesn't do at surface temperatures. Like expanding as it rises up the pipe toward the drilling rig. And forming icy crystals that clog up your containment dome. I mean, who knew?
To be honest, it is this part I'm probably most puzzled about. When we first sent men to the moon, we'd never been there before. We didn't know what we would find or how it would affect the humans and equipment that we sent to the surface of the moon. But, our scientists studied the possibilities, and when we got there, they had predicted everything we found. Accurately. But, petroleum scientists can't anticipate the behavior of methane gas at cold temperatures? Really?
So, now they're going to try a smaller unit, like a containment dome, but not the same. Smaller. But even if it works, it won't work as well as the containment dome that didn't. Work. And if this smaller unit doesn't work, they're going to try shooting chunks of golf balls and old rope into the pipe in the hope that might clog it up and slow the flow. Really? Chunks of golf balls and old rope? That's the answer of British Petroleum? I'm no petroleum scientist, but that seems ... um ... desperate. And primitive. And unlikely to succeed.
So, that leaves us with this "side" well that they're drilling hoping that they will drill into the blown out well and be able to shoot mud and concrete into the well and stop it up. Another ... oh ... 70 days, by my count, if they don't have any problems at all. Not too reassuring, given their record so far.
So, today we learn, according to the Austin American-Statesman, that "[n]early 100 industry standards set by the American Petroleum Institute are included in the nation's offshore operating regulations." Now, that in itself is not necessarily bad. The standards set by the American Petroleum Institute could be good standards. I don't know.
What caught my eye was the reasoning offered by the American Petroleum Institute for why their standards ought to be the regulatory standards for the industry. It wasn't, as I thought it might be, that their standards were good ones. It was "... that its standards are better for the industry's bottom line and make it easier to operate offshore than if the Minerals Management Seervice set the rules."
Well, um, yes. Okay? Isn't that exactly the problem? Do these people have no shame? Or are they just stupid? Or maybe, more likely, they are very smart, but they think the rest of us are stupid.
Let us put their defense in slightly different words. "It's good that we make the rules that regulate our industry, because it's better for us. Those rules are okay, because they allow us to make a lot of money, even though they cause exactly the problem we're facing now."
Sunday, May 9, 2010
More Benjamin Franklin
Before I get too set in my beliefs about things, like, say, the concept of separation of church and state or whether the United States was intended to be a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, I have to remind myself that it's very often pretty useful to actually read history, rather than read about it.
For instance, I was pretty sure Benjamin Franklin was a deist. Actually, I'm still pretty sure Benjamin Franklin was a deist.
He did, after all, write, in the last year of his life, "I have some doubts as to [Jesus'] divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."
So, imagine my surprise when I learned that, during the long hot summer of the Constitutional Convention, when the heat of the weather and the heat of the debate began to cause tempers to flare, Benjamin Franklin made a motion to begin every session of the Convention with a prayer, thinking it might well cool passions a bit.
But, imagine my even greater surprise when I learned that, the motion being put to a vote by the Founding Fathers of our republic, those very men who wrote and signed the Constitution of these United States, it failed. Apparently, the majority of those men who drafted our core document didn't see the necessity of publicly asking for divine intercession.
Or ... maybe ... they saw the risk in it.
For instance, I was pretty sure Benjamin Franklin was a deist. Actually, I'm still pretty sure Benjamin Franklin was a deist.
He did, after all, write, in the last year of his life, "I have some doubts as to [Jesus'] divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."
So, imagine my surprise when I learned that, during the long hot summer of the Constitutional Convention, when the heat of the weather and the heat of the debate began to cause tempers to flare, Benjamin Franklin made a motion to begin every session of the Convention with a prayer, thinking it might well cool passions a bit.
But, imagine my even greater surprise when I learned that, the motion being put to a vote by the Founding Fathers of our republic, those very men who wrote and signed the Constitution of these United States, it failed. Apparently, the majority of those men who drafted our core document didn't see the necessity of publicly asking for divine intercession.
Or ... maybe ... they saw the risk in it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Border Is Broken
According to Senator John McCain, "the border is broken. It's the worst I've ever seen it."
He said this within the last week or so in relation to the passage of Arizona S.B. 1070, relating to the obligation of Arizona peace officers to arrest those suspected of being in Arizona illegally.
Apparently Senator McCain hasn't been watching closely. Or, at all. Or, perhaps he was just saying something he thought sounded good, which wasn't really true. You know. Lying.
Actually, the Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. Despite, or perhaps because of, that substantial increase in people patrolling our borders, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years. Increases in the size of the illegal immigrant population, which had been growing by a half a million people a year for more than a decade, have stopped.
So, the Border Patrol has doubled in size. The number of people those twice-as-many folks can find crossing our borders illegally has dropped by half. And the number of illegal residents of the United States has stopped growing.
Um ... Senator ... exactly what about that is the worst you've ever seen? Are you saying it was better when the Border Patrol was half the size it is now? Or better when more people were crossing our borders illegally? Or better when the population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was growing?
I'm confused, Senator. Help me out here.
He said this within the last week or so in relation to the passage of Arizona S.B. 1070, relating to the obligation of Arizona peace officers to arrest those suspected of being in Arizona illegally.
Apparently Senator McCain hasn't been watching closely. Or, at all. Or, perhaps he was just saying something he thought sounded good, which wasn't really true. You know. Lying.
Actually, the Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. Despite, or perhaps because of, that substantial increase in people patrolling our borders, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years. Increases in the size of the illegal immigrant population, which had been growing by a half a million people a year for more than a decade, have stopped.
So, the Border Patrol has doubled in size. The number of people those twice-as-many folks can find crossing our borders illegally has dropped by half. And the number of illegal residents of the United States has stopped growing.
Um ... Senator ... exactly what about that is the worst you've ever seen? Are you saying it was better when the Border Patrol was half the size it is now? Or better when more people were crossing our borders illegally? Or better when the population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was growing?
I'm confused, Senator. Help me out here.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Benjamin Franklin
I offer this without comment from Benjamin Franklin, An American Life, by Walter Isaacson.
"[Benjamin Franklin's] antipathy to excess wealth also led him to defend high taxes, especially on luxuries. A person had a 'natural right' to all he earned that was necessary to support himself and his family, he wrote finance minister Robert Morris, 'but all property superfluous to such purpsoses is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it.' Likewise, to [Benjamin] Vaughan, he argued that cruel criminal laws had been wrought by those who sought to protect excess ownership of property. 'Superfluous property is the creature of society,' he said. 'Simple and mild laws were sufficient to guard the property that was merely necessary.'"
"[Benjamin Franklin's] antipathy to excess wealth also led him to defend high taxes, especially on luxuries. A person had a 'natural right' to all he earned that was necessary to support himself and his family, he wrote finance minister Robert Morris, 'but all property superfluous to such purpsoses is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it.' Likewise, to [Benjamin] Vaughan, he argued that cruel criminal laws had been wrought by those who sought to protect excess ownership of property. 'Superfluous property is the creature of society,' he said. 'Simple and mild laws were sufficient to guard the property that was merely necessary.'"
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Well ...
This is from an article in the Austin American-Statesman today:
"A little more than a year before the spill [that is currently polluting the Lousiana coast], BP [British Petroleum] had downplayed the risk of such an accident.
"In a 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis dated February 2009, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries. BP's plan [Yes, companies do their own environmental impact statements under U.S. law. If you thought the federal government was doing those analyses, you were mistaken.], filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well [the one that blew out], says repeatedly it is 'unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities.'
"Although BP conceded that a spill would 'cause impacts' to beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that 'due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.'"
Well. Okay! So, what's everybody so worried about? In BP we trust. It's all going to be fine. No significant adverse impacts are expected. Everyone can go home and rest easy. BP's got it all under control.
Seriously, someone believed them. Or, else, someone just didn't care whether what they said was true or not.
"Come on guys! Let's go make some money!"
"A little more than a year before the spill [that is currently polluting the Lousiana coast], BP [British Petroleum] had downplayed the risk of such an accident.
"In a 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis dated February 2009, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries. BP's plan [Yes, companies do their own environmental impact statements under U.S. law. If you thought the federal government was doing those analyses, you were mistaken.], filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well [the one that blew out], says repeatedly it is 'unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities.'
"Although BP conceded that a spill would 'cause impacts' to beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that 'due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.'"
Well. Okay! So, what's everybody so worried about? In BP we trust. It's all going to be fine. No significant adverse impacts are expected. Everyone can go home and rest easy. BP's got it all under control.
Seriously, someone believed them. Or, else, someone just didn't care whether what they said was true or not.
"Come on guys! Let's go make some money!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)