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."
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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)