E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In dueling court filings late Wednesday, the government asked the judge who blocked the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling to put his own ruling on hold, while oil companies asked him to do just the opposite -- to speed up enforcement of his order, accusing the government of defying his ruling.
"Just hours after the court issued its preliminary injunction order," said lawyers for the oil service companies who originally challenged the moratorium, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar "announced the de facto continuance of the moratorium in direct defiance of this court's order." Salazar said in a statement Tuesday that the government would shortly issue a new moratorium on deepwater drilling. He also told a congressional hearing that "the moratorium stays in place," they said in their court filings.
Those comments, the energy company lawyers say, chill any efforts to resume drilling activity, which they claim is precisely what the judge was trying to prevent. Let the government appeal and try to get the judge's order stopped in court, they argue, but in the meantime make the government obey it.
The Justice Department, on the other hand, urged the judge to put his ruling on ice while the Obama administration seeks to have it reversed it in the federal appeals court in New Orleans. Keeping the moratorium in place, the government says, "would further serve the public interest by eliminating the risk of another drilling accident while new safety equipment standards and procedures are considered."
What's more, the government says, the oil companies have demonstrated a risk of short-term economic harm to the Gulf states, but the Interior Department sought the moratorium "to prevent the risk of more loss of life and long-term environmental and economic devastation like that arising from the Deepwater Horizon accident."
In the mean time, the Justice Department says, despite Secretary Salazar's statements, the government will comply with the judge's order blocking the moratorium.
Leave a Comment:
The fact that this judge who has ties with (5) different oil companies and didn't exempt himself tells me all I need to know!
Interesting isn't it? Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
Right on Adler...
Sweetness! You would think that the amount of grandstanding by the Right would eventually hit the wall. Now if they could only justify big corporations to contribute to their campaigns for public office... oh wait, they already do, however the Republithugs make it so, that it should be illegal... oh wait, they already have.
This judge is a phony and this will be another campaign set back for the Whackadoodles. The polls can reflect all the negative aspects against Democrats for the next 2 - 3 months. But when the numbers come in the beginning of November, it will reflect opposite. Especially once all the ads reflect what the TEA party has actually been drinking which is TEXAS TEA.
The judge had large investment holdings in 17 energy companies including TransOcean, BP and Halliburton. Granted, lots of people have stocks in these companies but the judge should have declined hearing the case and sent it to another.
Like Obama being the largest benefactor of BP money. And the last records of the judge owning stock was 2008 Jody, If you are saying that a judge can never own any stock in any industry because some day he may hear a trial in regards to the industry than perhaps we need to train monks or the Omish to take over our judicial system.
Jake, your statement might be a bit misleading. It's not that he had these investments until 2008, it's that it has been disclosed up until 2008. They don't need to disclose their holding every year. We will know if he still has these investments in a few months time. In the meantime, it is a pretty safe bet that he still has them as nothing suggests that he would have dumped them.
Also, no one is saying that a judge cannot own stock, it has been suggested that he should have recused himself and allow a judge that does not own stocks in energy hear the case. This is not a new concept and has been advocated by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
When are people going to realize that this oil spill is not BP's fault, this is not Obama's fault, it is not the designer of the rig or the agency in charge of safety inspections, it is our insatiable appetite for oil that is doing this. But of course we have to scapegoat anyone we can. Sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but in the end we need to look at our hummers in our driveway's, or our yacht's in our marina's, or the air conditioner running in our households.
We need to start developing our clean and renewable energy sources. Until we do that we need to start developing more nuclear power plants. Very clean and for the most part very safe (we have come a long way since Three Mile Island. Besides T.M.I. was not even a meltdown. Our only danger is finding a place to store our spent fuel rods, which is becoming easier and I hear the state of Kentucky is generating massive revenue due to their collection of nuclear waste).
America's development of oil help it become a superpower. However, oil is becoming obsolete and hurting our environment. Let's show the world why we should be still considered a superpower by developing low cost, widely available renewable energy.
Cult of Personality - yep too many Americans don't want to belly up to the bar and accept the blame they should accept. Too many think they've got some god given right to waste as much dirty oil as possible and ofcourse super cheap. Used to be Americans were proud of being frugal and patient now too many Americans just think they can be a bunch of spendthrifts who want everything now now now.
Figures Kentucky would accept the spent fuel rods. Anything to hide the results of too many generations of inbreding
I agree we need to reduce our demand for oil. However this is not just an unavoidable accident BP has had nearly 700 serious safety violations in two years they have facilities that have killed people in the US and other countries. The company with the second worse safety record had 8 violations, that right 600+ to 8 that is the difference between first and second. They have shown over and over that they will not let anything interfere with production, and profit, not human lives, not the environment, nothing. This is not simply an accident, it is the direct result of decisions that were made, and orders given by the rig managers, the overriding concern in these decisions was not safety, or responsibility, it was max profit.
I know I am being selfish but, i sold my boat to save gas, i sold my beloved Suburban solely to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle - I still rue that day seven years later.
But, CP, I am not about to give up AC !! Try surviving a south Georgia summer without it! Misery!!
OK, I'll bump the thermostat up a couple degrees. And wait for the afternoon thunderstorms to blow in.
Cult, you're right that this will always be a risk as long as 2% of the population insists on consuming 28% of the world's oil. I can't agree that it's no one's fault, however. A whole slew of basic safety procedures were ignored, and regulations are weak. These are areas that we really need to address as long as we need to drill for oil.
Actually this whole system is largely set up to limit liability. BP is always drilling someplace and could own the rigs, but using contractors allows a plausible deniability on claims...or it did until this whopper came to pass. When I was a teen and young adult there were a whole series of hazardous waste discoveries in eastern NE and SW Iowa. Half the town of Malvern, IA might have been blown up if an abandoned powdered egg factory not been discovered to be full of dangerously unstable chemical waste. Part of downtown Omaha including the Federal building was evacuated due to dangerous chemicals in a warehouse. An abandoned Ag chemical plant, already the site of one of the original 50 Superfund cleanups, stuffed to the rafters with hazmat. All of these locations were organized the same way. A shell corporation would collect hazardous waste from a computer manufacturer and store it in a quiet, nondescript warehouse. Once the warehouse was full the corporation would file bankruptcy and abandon the toxic, dangerous mess for the government to clean up.
Oh, and every one of these sites and more were storing wast from defunct mainframe computer maker Control Data Corporation. Coincidence?
Oh Eric, I am sure you have just as big of a carbon footprint as everyone else. Dude you have got to be the biggest blowhard on this blog.
Only a corrupt conservative judge appointed by Corrupt Ronny Raygunz would be crooked enough to stop the sane oil drilling moratorium. This crooked conservative judge with extensive stock holdings in the Three Stooges Oil Drilling companies that caused the Deepwater oil spill disaster should have recused himself as his stock holdings give him a serious conflict of economic interest. I'm sure he won't do the right thing by staying his own order, all he's worried about is his investment and not the people of the Gulf who have been harmed, or the wetlands destroyed or the wildlife killed.
I'm glad that the Obama Administration is going to ignore this corrupt conservative judge's order and keep the moratorium in place for the 6 month time out period that's needed to clean up offshore oil driller's act. I say that President Obama should send in the Navy and Marines to secure every one of the 33 drilling rigs shuttered temporarily. Time for these incompetent lying major oil corporations to take a financial beating so they learn to do their offshore drilling safely and to be prepared in case they cause another spill.
In another travesty against justice the radical subversive conservative supreme sourt jesters are protecting criminals like Enron's Jeff Skilling and some other criminal named Black. Just goes to show that our less than supreme court is packed with too many rich and greedy criminal huggers and they have no intention of allowing proper justice to be brought to these conservative criminals who were Corrupt Oil Man Bush's BFF's.
this is not about a judge this about thousands of americans looseing their jobs for good because once those oil rigs that have not had any problems leave their not comeing backand ask obama how much money he took from BP during his campaign. obama just wants to look good to the left no matter how many families suffer.he has not done anything about the economy or unemployment to inprove it. he said 8% unemployment no he promised 8 % but we all know how his promises turn out. it is easy to cost people jobs and put them on unemployment which will not pay bills . the max unemployment payments in La. are 250.00 a week and when the gas prices go sky hi because the rigs will leave, ye its easy to do when you have millions in the bank,when his 4 years are up he can pay for the gas he usesand even pay for private schools for his kids.I would like to see him hold one press conference and tell the people on the coast how to provde for their families on unemployment.
How about he tells the families of those killed in accidents that could have been prevented that he's sorry he didn't keep their loved ones from being blown up like the victims of the Deepwater Horizon? Or those who used to work fisheries forever destroyed because we didn't do a reasonable safety assessment after the first massive spill that they can always find some other way to support their families? Maybe you'd like him to tell everyone in the Gulf tourist trade that it was a nice way to earn a living, but we just couldn't take the time to make sure our safety regulations were sufficient to safeguard their way of life? How will he look on TV saying "I dunno, I just figured those other companies must be doing it right?"
Enough with the fairytale that we must continue drilling in places where we've just PROVEN we can't stop a slow-motion disaster because no one will ever exploit those reserves because once upon a time there was a break in the action. Every year there are people trying to open ANWR, exploit mineral and timber in our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, and otherwise make some money off markets that don't even yet exist. Your story that we'll all live unhappily ever after just doesn't fly in the face of the entire history of Capitalism. If there's money to be made someone will be there.
Thousands of people are losing theirjobs, and property because of the oil drilling industry, what about them they certainly feel as you do about their situation, except they may not be talking about 6 months they might be talking decades, years before their industry returns. It believe it is about 33 rigs that are affected out of 3,600 in the gulf. Maybe ask the good senator from Texas to ask his oil company buddies to help you guys out, most of the oil companies make about 3 billion + per quarter. One billion dollars would pay 10,000 men a $100,000 per year. They could pay 20,000 men $50,000 for six months, while they are off. You should ask your elected officails to make a claim agaisnt BP on behalf of the oil workers in their states.
I am so tired of hearing people say that Obama "promised" that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. You weren't listening to him. No one knew what to do about an unprecedented economic collapse. He expressed a hope that the policies suggested by his economic advisers would keep unemployment below 8%. There is a big difference between a hope and a promise. You people are calling it a "promise" just so you can feel justified in whining about him not keeping his "promise". This is a good man who is doing the best he can under circumstances that would break almost anyone. (How do you think McCain would be doing with all that is going on right now?) Now I guess when the unemployment numbers go way up because of all the people in the gulf who are losing their jobs and livelihoods, you are going to say that's Obama's fault, too, because somehow he should have been able to keep all those people employed by cutting taxes or some such ridiculous cr*p.
your damn right it will be blaimed on him if the gov. would have been doing their job regulateing and keeping these rigs in ck this could have been avoided. or mabe instead of sideing with the enviromentalist we would not be drilling in 500 ft of water they bitch about oil but they use it everyday, most of these people looseing thier jobs didnt choose oil they chose to work insread of sitting on their asses growing and selling pot like some other states do .Also these people are also cooks on boats, helicopter piolets, transportation, and when these rigs leave it want be six months of lost job but years,most of these people that bi...tch about oil drilling dont live in the south, you know I dont see anybody frof the gulf coast going to california and ptotesting about their marijuana shops. obama needs to keep smokeing his crack that he admitted to and leave these people along ,it;s ot like he doing a damn thing but get in the way.once a crack smoker always a crack smoker look it up.
This judge probably should have removed himself from the case so that people would not have something to whine about. The same people whining about this judge probably need to look at their 401K statements sometime. Look to see where your money is invested and see where YOUR money is being made. I guarantee you will be singing another tune when you see how much YOUR company is invested in the oil industry.
Evidently this judge is hooked up with a good investment firm. Even my families' little 15 employee biz only gross 20% profit but all of the retirement plans are heavily invested in the oil industry whether directly or indirectly. When we had the crash their plans continued to gain.
That oil spill is terrible but you can't arbitrarily blame the entire industry because most in America is benefitting one way or another from it.
All you are proving is that almost all of us have conflicts of interest because we are "forced" into the system. Only a few of us haven't been made hypocrites by the carrot-and-stick economic pardgm; and you don't want us to be the ones making the objective decisions for you...this I know.
When you have a 401K, you have an investment firm that manages it; stocks are in certain groups and the 401K owner has little say on what specifically is bought and sold; the owner's input is limited to determining risk and general types of investments. If the judge had a broker who bought and sold at his decision, he should have refused the case. If he had a 401K, he should explain that.
The whining isn't as much about the possibility of conflict of interest but more about the idiocy of allowing further off-shore exploration without first insuring we don't create another mess before fixing this one. Failure to study history means we're doomed to repeat it.
What a little dictator Obama is becoming. He's got to have a direct line to his commie friend Hugo Chavez.
Lets see now, the Obama administration have stopped the sand berms from being built to stop the oil from reaching shore, don't much care that a few hundred thousand workers are out of work in the region because of oil drilling stoppage, are suing Arizona for enforcing immigration laws, continue to want to have trials for terroist leaders in New York City, and are still working on that Gitmo closing to move the terrorists to US soil. How does Obama manage to get it so wrong on so many things?
The courts have said you're full of it Obama, and you better start getting used to it. Why can't you just let it go and not be so thin-skinned about it?
Simpleton JoAnna, you must be a Mormon. The berms are unproven to be effective. They haven't put enough people to work tending to the booms, do you think the berms are going to clean themselves? Maintain themselves? One storm and all the oil goes back into the gulf and then to shore. Try thinking. Obama is considerably taller than Bush, why do you never refer to Bush's size as a dictator?
JoAnnaSmith
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, The man is trying to clean up the mess your dear GWB created. And yes whine that when's he going to stop blaming Bush. Your esteemed Ronald Reagan continued to blame Carter even during his '84 inaugueration. So please get off your high horse.
joanna,
"the Obama administration" is considered a singular entity. So it is "has" stopped..., :"doesn't" much care, "is" suing...you get the idea.
Besides that, the courts did not tell him he is "full of it". A judge with a conflict of interest who did not have the professional ethics to recuse himself, ruled against him. That's it.
I think you need to go back to fox for another load of "it".
JoAnnaSmith either called in to Hannity's show yesterday, or copied off some other nit wit that did. There was an idiot caller that went from the oil spill to Gitmo and the NYC trials. OF course, Sean said nothing to discourage her, or keep her on topic. JoAnna- was that you? Are you and No Jo still taking eachother tothe prom??
From the sound of her... I'm beginning to think JoAnna IS Sean Insanity!
And bless you Drive-By for having the intestinal fortitude to listen to that sh!t!
Can I get you another beer?
I've heard and read some crazy stuff but J Smith has reached a new level of making absolutely no sense whatsoever. I really think it is Glenn Beck, it has to be because his stuff doesn't make any sense either.
FYI--Bobby Jindal temporarily STOPPED the sand berms because they were having engineering problems so gets your facts straight. As for Hugo Chavez, I heard he is friends with Dick Cheney--not sure where I heard it but they've been close for years, it's the oil brotherhood.
And Jindal is NOT using all the money and resources the Obama Administration allowed him for some reason...
He is not using all the resources so he can continue to whine and say President Obama is not doning enough. Hey is playing Politics at the expense of the people he is supposed to represent. Thanks for pointing out the facts.
Are we to believe "Mother Nature" popped a pimple? or that God is vomiting in the Gulf of Mexico? All the blaming of consumerism don't change the fact BP did this. For greed.
Bash the Good American People all ou want, British Petroleum is ultimately responsible for murdering 11 men and an entire eco-system, destroying the economies of entire industries.
You are not foisting this off on me! Place blame where it belongs BP, GOP, greedy people shackled by employment to the Oily Barony Teat.
Someone needs to inform Ken Salazar that we are a nation of laws. Laws that apply to each of us equally. He defies a federal court order at his own peril-that peril being contempt of court.
A nation of laws, huh? Pls go read the story concerning Skillings and fraud that just popped up today.
People should be very afraid when the government does not comply with the law. I am not surprised. It is typical of the current administration to thumb their nose at everybody; they don't care what the public says.
While they're thumbing their nose at this current court, they're about to set off another fire storm. They've dreamed up a scheme for Obama to sign an executive order granting "immigration exemptions", thereby, giving the 12M+ illegals citizenship status. (New Dems to vote, huh?) Only thing about an executive order is, tho, that the next President can rescind it. but, if Obama does this, I do hope he has his bags packed and ready to move out of the WH.
It's interesting to me that Justice is going to file a lawsuit against AZ. Look at the millions that suit will cost. Wow, we could use that instead for more border security! That won't happen, tho . He's not going to secure the border because it lessens the demand for "comprephensive immigration reform" (code word amnesty).
Saw an interesting 2007 interview with Obama'a Nobel Prize winner, Steve Chu, who then said that "BP will save the world". Hmmm...
Dirt,
Should Obama simply issue over 700 Presidential Signing Statements? Remember? Bush simply ignored over 700 laws that HE signed into effect while simultaneously signing a statement stating he was not going to abide by or honor the law he just signed. Does that constitute a government not complying with the law? Or, by just stating you will ignore the law mean you are really complying after all?
Yes, an executive order can be rescinded. It is common practice in the waning days of an administration to issue many before leaving office. Then the incoming administration has to scramble to overturn and/or rescind those orders. It sometimes takes a while and they are left in effect for a while. I do not have the facts in front of me but I am sure one of the other "libs" can find the references to just a few of the gems left behind by Dubya to hamper Obamas early weeks in office. Not like they left him any other "gifts" on the oval office desk when they left right?
It is also interesting to me JoAnna that people like you love to parrot the ditto head mantra about spending and the incredible deficits. All Obama does is spend, spend, spend... Yes, Obama has definitely been spending money in an effort to keep the economy from imploding. Like when McCain and Gramm wanted us all to know the recession was all in our head. The "mental recession" (just so you remember JoAnna was occurring long before Obama took office. So, please spare us. Not to mention that the lovely TARP legislation that you are all so butt hurt over was signed by GWB! Obama has continued many of the spending policies of Bush. that is unfortunate, but preferable to a collapse of our entire economy. How well would the top 3% be doing in the midst of a financial collapse?
Lastly, let's also not lose sight of the fact that the most extreme members of the right wing are blocking efforts to extend unemployment, offer support for those facing foreclosure, reinstating the first time buyers credit, etc. Why are they blocking these efforts? Well, it is because they are all too expensive and you are all way too concerned about deficits and what we are leaving for our grandchildren to pay off. All this while, at the very same time, the GOBP is preparing to offer changes to the estate tax that will literally drain HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars from future revenue all to the benefit of the wealthiest 0.03% of all Americans. How is THAT for fair and balanced?
Yes, we are a nation of laws--as long as those laws are the ones the GOP thinks appropriate. How many laws did Bush and Cheney break?
Last time I checked, the Govt has the right to issue a moratorium and if the first one didn't work, they can issue another. Wonder if the right would have the same argument about this IF Bush had issued the moratorium.
Disgusted in PA. Great post.
Evidently this judge is hooked up with a good investment firm. Even my families' little 15 employee biz only gross 20% profit but all of the retirement plans are heavily invested in the oil industry whether directly or indirectly. When we had the crash their plans continued to gain.
Well gee whiz I wonder why! Have you forgotten the record profits that oil companies were making just a year or so ago? Gasoline was never in short supply but gas was still $4.00 a gallon in some parts of the country and just under that in all other areas. Which means once again the rich were and still are getting richer at every one elses expense.
Did you read the rest of the post or did you just zero in on a segment to support your snark remark?
I did, ITM. To me it reads like a great rationalization to do the wrong thing.
Oh, wait...not even gonna bother commenting to your outlandish post.Â
How many people realize that our resources (oil) are put into one big pot, then put up for sale on the world market to the highest bidder (China,India,etc...)? Profit drives everything and now we see the results of that, shortcuts to maximize profits. With a 75M$ cap in place why not take huge risks? We need to take "our" blinders off, industry cannot self regulate, the government does have a role here and we can honestly see what happens when this relationship is too cozy. If you want little to no government, and all the guns, I suggest you go to Somalia,a perfect place for most tea party types!
You're right John, and well said. That's why even the Department of Defense did a study that finds oil dependency to be a destabilizing influence in the world. Say for a moment we drilled in ANWR as we're always being told we should. In addition to violating one of the last pristine wilderness areas in our country and providing a tiny fraction of the oil we use in the US, the resulting crude would undoubtedly be sent to the same place as most of the Alaskan oil that is already collected...THE FAR EAST!! That's right, it'll go to the market that presents the easiest and cheapest destination. "National petroleum security" is a myth. It's a world market.
Mix Bag: - From a Previous Thread (It was getting crowded).
My take Mix Bag is that people are frustrated by just about everything. They are frustrated with the economy, the oil spill, the on-going policing actions in Afghanistan, no clear policy on immigration reform, the unemployment numbers, damage from flooding in the plains, midwest and parts of the east, a cut back in local and state services that effects their everyday lives, terrorists running around the world killing people, an inability to get credit anymore and the fact that their homes (if they stiill have a home) have decreased in value, the high costs of a higher education tha tthey cannot afford for their children, public schools that seem to be failing, an old and worn out infrastrcuture, the gang drug wars near the border, a rancher being killed supposedly by illegals crossing the border, a watered down space program that no longer supplys new and exciting moments and events, the high cost of child care for young parents, news of the rich getting richer while the middle class and poor get poorer, news of some with wealth getting caught stealing from your avergae American, the loss of one's pension due to the mismanagement of banks and investment firms, predictions of the end of the world in 2012, politicans and other well known personalities getting by with commiting crimes that would place your average person in prison, athletes making millions while many less fortunate people lacking health care, the runaway bureacracies found on the state and federal levels, republicans fighting dems and dems fighting republicans, some well known pundits speaking of doom on a daily basis, news programs giving in to political commentary programs filling people's heads with all manner of crap on both sides, the ability for people to relax now and again taken away because everyone has to be politically correct all the time, some people getting too onery and others getting too thin skinned, people losing their sprituality, material objects becoming the most important thing in people's lives, divorce, child molestations, ......................shall I go on Mix Bag.
Now some can sit here and blame Obama all they want as to why people are so frustrated today. But the fact is many of the things noted above and many more not mentioned have been coming for years (under numerous Presidents and administrations and both poltiical partys). And many of the issues above have contributors (many contributors) to the poor state of things instead of and beyond Obama. Some of these frustrating things are the fault of us, the people. Some are no one's fault but simply the results of events out of people's control.
The fact is Mixed Bag it matters not who has been President for the last year and a half. They would have been faced with the same issues, made decisions that pleased some and did not please others. Required to take on major problems that frankly they too would not have a clue how to resolve as people want them resolved. And they too would suffer at polls or in the minds and hearts of people because the people want these frustrations lifted from them. All of them, they are tired of these problems. But name me one person Mixed Bag capable of taking on all of these frustrating things and making them all better for all people tomorrow morning. It ain't going to happen unless you stated God. But perhaps even God is tired of trying to help us right the ship on all these matters, many of which human beings have brought upon themselves, and many where there is really no right or wrong answer on how to resolve. Perhaps even He is saying to Himself, its time to end it. Who knows.
So the Judge is corrupt because he holds stock with oil companies. Any Idea what percentage of his portfolio the oil company stock represents? What if it only a small percent? My 401k hold a fair amount of oil and energy (nuclear) stock, does that mean that any opinion I may have is automatically biased. Any of you folks know anything about the judicial code of ethics, or how disqualification is determined? I'll assume not.
Whaat about the judge in the California Prop. 8 lawsuit. Applying the logic that any judge who holds oil company stock is automatically biased, or "corrupt" then it must certainly also be true that the Prop. 8 judge, who is gay, must also be deemed biased, and if he rules in favor of the folks seeking to throw the law out, his ruling is the result of corruption.
But I don't expect that judge to stop being gay any more than I expect anyone here to stop driving their cars, flying in airplanes, using their computers, or doing any other activity that is possible due to oil. You know who doesn't use any oil? The tribes of the Amazonian rain forest. That would be a fantanstic, except I like my car, my computer, my food (that gets trucked and shipped), and all the other modern comforts.
If you want to rule on a case involving oil, divest your holdings permanently in oil. Not that complicated. You are still free to be a consumer of oil and the products derived from it. Don't go providing us with false choices Spanky, we can see through the illogic of that tactic.
Ummm, Spanky? Owning oil stock is a choice based upon the potential to make money. Being gay is who someone IS, something they can't just discard anymore than someone can decide to suddenly join another race. It's a false equivalence.
You didn't address his argument, Paul. What about the judge who may be gay and any bias such a judge may bring in on a question like Prop 8? How do you reconcile the two, Paul?
I would imagine Jill that the difference would be that the Gay Judge has empathy and a sensitivity to Gays and how all citizens should receive equal rights versus the Oil Judge having empathy and sensitivity to that which fattens his wallet, money. Might both judges be biased to that which they hold dear to them, the former equal rights and the latter money? Perhaps. But when questioning the intent and /or biases of both (if indeed they are biased) which judge might have the better reason to be bias? A person can be bias about many things. But if a person's bias is directed towards that which is good for others versus that which is solely good for self, and if we can agree that all judges most likely have biases, well, you can follow the rest of the story .....................
The judge's code of ethics requires him to avoid even the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest, which the stock ownership seems to be. In other words, there doesn't have to be an actual conflict--the judge is required to not appear to have a conflict. He should have recused himself.
The problem with your argument is that you will always be able to find a group of "others" that a judge's bias may benefit other than himself. For instance, perhaps the so-called "Oil Judge"'s bias is directed toward the loss of employment of those who work on these rigs. So, then there's the bias "towards that which is good for others" of which you seem to approve...
Who are you to say which biases are "beneficial"?
So if you have a "better reason to be biased" it's ok?
If the judge who owns oil stock must divest permanently in oil or be forever accused of bias, and we know gay is not a chioce, must not the gay judge recuse himself. Certainly the gay judge will be biased on such an important issue effecting gays. Lat time I chech there were other judges who could have stepped in had the gay judge recused himself.
And really CA I do appreciate your notion the "if a person's bias is directed towards that which is good for others versus that which is solely good for self" as an someone who deals with judges all the time. They all kind of have that exact same notion, regardless of the issue before them or their rulings. But I guess that presupposes that the oil stock owning judge's decision is only good for him (an oil stock owner) as opposed to everyone else who needs oil, as it is a part of nearly everything we consume.
There is no problem with my argument. If it were possible to find judges who had no biases whatsoever then my arguement would not hold water. We could say then that only those who have no biases will be appointed to judgeships. But all do have biases. And with this being the case then we are limited to hoping that only those judges whose biases are directed towards the greater good and benefit of others will be those appointed and hearing such important cases.
As for Jill's example, a judge who might have a bias for the good of those people wishing to maintain their employment as oil rig workers, here again which decision serves the greater good? (We are assuming of course that in this instance the judge gives a hoot about the oil workers versus solely for the good of his lining his own pocket). Ruling in favor of the oil companies so these workers can return to work 6 months before they would do the same under the administration's orders, or ruling in favor of the moratorium in order to ensure the protection of the gulf coast and hundreds/thousands of others whose livlihoods depend on a clean gulf as well of millions of Americans who do not want to see our natural resources (the gulf) incur further damage as a result of bypassing safety assurances? Such a decision would not be unlike sacraficing to a degree the good of one (for six months) for the good of many more other humans and for the good of this earth. There is no arguement. Those who might be harmed for six months before they can return to work would have to make such a sacrafice.
As for the Gay judge you are correct Spanky. There is no choice for them. This fact alone makes an even better argument for allowing for the potential bias of a gGay judge to hear cases on Gay civil rights, verus a judge who has a choice between losing and/or gaining some money personally on their oil investments. If a Gay judge were to hear a case where Gays might achieve greater civil rights than other citizens then I would agree that in such a case a Gay judge should recuse themselves. But if the Gay judge is hearing a case that would equalize the civil rights of Gays with that of other citizens then I see no problem with the judge's gay bias having an impact on the outcome.
As for the thousands upon thousands of people impacted by such a ruling because they want or need oil, is not the greater good achieed (as even the poltiicins agree) when we can begin to do what everyone thinks we should do that is to get away from our dependence of oil? Naturally we cannot do this , nor would we want to do this, in one full immediate swoop. But for some oil workers to have to wait six months to go back to work and for the worlds oil market to have to wait six months for these particular wells to begin contributing agaion to the world's pool of oil, is not equal too nor on the same level of the greater good of protecting our gulf coast.
CA, ANY bias used to justify making a ruling is WRONG, I don't care what you see as the "greater good." Judges should make their decisions within the confines of the law, and they should be able to put the biases that they inevitably carry into the courtroom aside.
Now, talk to me about the flaws in the legal analysis applied by this Oil Judge to the facts of this particular case. Or, have you not even read the opinion? Thought so.
CA - So you agree that both the judge who owns oil stock is bhiased, and the gay judge is biased, but you do not agree that they should both have recused themselves? In your mind only the Oil judge should have? So some biases (as in those biases you share) are ok, whereas others are not. And do we let the judges who are biased decide? Again, the judicial ethics and cannon prohibit any hint of impartiality. Seems like you admit that the gay judge is biased, so accordingly he should have, but did not, recuse himself. And why do you suppose that is?
Jill and Spanky:
We could go on and on with this. The fact is you guys are basing your positions on what we would like to be real versus reality. Should judges be impartial, without bias or prdjudice? Of course. That is your utopia. That is anyone;s utopia. Are judges impartial and with predjudice? No, they are not. That is reality.
Spanky. Do I think both the oil judge and the gGy judge have biases. Yes I do. Do I think that one form of bias, that which is for the greater good, is acceptable over another form of bias that is self-serving or in favor of a few over the greater good of the many. Yes I do. I have too. Because I have no choice. I could only hope that judges have no biases and I have already stated that such a position is unrealistic.
Jill, I have not stated that the judge on the oil case was wrong. I stated on an earlier thread that if he is strictly following the law then that is they way it has to be. That this Administration would have to regroup on this mortaorium within the confines of the law. I also thought that Obama knew this going in (he is not stupid) and that he would have to come at this issue from a different direction. But I also stated that if the decision was made with a bias towards protecting self (the judges personal investments) or that it was made to serve the few (the oil workers) over that of the greater good of the many (those wishing to protect and preserve our gulf, the earth, marine life, wildlife and the livlihood of those needing clean waters which exceeds those who work on oil rigs in the gulf ), then the decision was wrong. I can't read the mans' mind.
And Jill, what is this "thought so" BS at the end of your last comment. We are discussing here. You need not get snarky. I have not and neither has Spanky. This is why some folks on here don't liike you. You can't discuss and disagree without getting snarky.
CA, I never said that they are not without their biases, but what I said was that regardless of their biases, they are to make decisions within the confines of the law. I don't think that is some kind of idealistic utopia, as you like to call it. The decision in this case was made because, basically, the government did not articulate any reasonable explanation for calling for a blanket ban on offshore drilling (and in fact misrepresented the recommendations of the experts cited). Your statement that "if the decision was made with a bias towards protecting self . . . or that it was made to serve the few . . . over that of the greater good of the many . . . then the decision was wrong" suggests that it is ok to ignore the law if the decision benefits the most people (or the "greater good" as you determine what the greater good may be). That's not really how the judicial system is supposed to work.
CA, I really could not care less what people on this blog think of me. And if you want to see posts that are 100% snark, then you're looking at the wrong person. Those that do not like me are among the snarkiest posters on this board, and I think that it is ironic that you call ME out for something like that when you don't seem to have a problem with some (i.e., Feisty) who are no substance, all snark.
Jill,
There you go again... You've now officially knocked off Kathy in Charlotte as my #1 Fan! Are you aware of the responsibilities that go along with being President of the Feisty Redhead fan club? If not give me a shout out & I'll send them to you!
If you 'really' don't care then explain why you always have to have the 'last' word! If nothing else you are good for an occasional laugh... :0)
Want some popcorn?
Feisty, I would laugh at you if your comments were not so utterly asinine that they actually make me feel a bit sorry for you.
Who said anything about not caring? Oh, I see...you choose to respond to the one part of my post that is not substantive...
Talk about predictable.
Jill:
I never got into a discussion as to the whys and hows of this judges ruling. Like I said, I can't read his mind. I, you, can read the reason he has provided for his decision but does that preclude that what he states as the reason is in fact the real reason behind his decision. Do you think he is going to put in his decision making comments I ruled in this manner because I have heavy investments in the oil industry. I am willing to say I don't know the real reason behind his decision, maybe admirable, maybe not. But you are so willing to give this judge the benefit of the doubt because of what he wrote in regards to his decision but yet so quick to crtiicize or doubt Obama when he makes a statement about the reasons for his decisions. Why is that Jill?
When and if Feisty or anyone else on the blog gets snarky with me for no reason or simply because I disagree with a position they take then I will call them out on it too. To date, few have done so, but you have been one of those, today. Go back and look at our posts regarding this specifc issue. Find and quote any snarky remark I made to you to have deserved the "thought so" remark from you.
I dunno Jill... between your fascination with my a@@ & the fact that I seem to get under your skin... it's I who feel sorry for you there Babe!
While we're at it... would you be a sport and point me to what part of your post was substantive?
Cause even with my glasses on I can't seem to find it!
Jill's reply in 3...2...1...
Your statement that "if the decision was made with a bias towards protecting self . . . or that it was made to serve the few . . . over that of the greater good of the many . . . then the decision was wrong" suggests that it is ok to ignore the law if the decision benefits the most people (or the "greater good" as you determine what the greater good may be). That's not really how the judicial system is supposed to work.
CA, would you care to respond to this part of my post, because this was my point. You suggested in your prior post that it may be ok to disregard the law if the decision is for the greater good. I would just like to hear your thoughts on that point. Without getting into the substance of the judge's legal analysis, don't you think it's pretty shady for the Obama administration to insert a misrepresentation into their reasons for calling for a blanket moratorium, when the experts did not call for such a thing? I certainly do.
Feisty, you wouldn't recognize substance if it flew up and knocked the popcorn you are always eating right out of your hand. So, me pointing out the substantive part of my post would essentially be an exercise in futility.
Darling Jill... what a pussy... I mean cat you are!
I rest my case darling! Thanks for playing...
Oh joy...yet another shining example of Feisty's brilliant intellect.
CA, I'm still waiting to hear your response as to whether you think it is ok to ignore the rule of law for the greater good, as your post seemed to imply.
Sure wonder why we haven't heard a peep from DICK Chaney in the last 2 months - he's the guy who is responsible for allowing his rich buddies in the oil companies to do whatever they want to do. DICK's silence is speaking for itself.
Interesting question you pose? Inquiring minds are thinking the same thing. I think it is time the people demand an investigation into the dealings that tricky dick had with that energy meeting that was deemed off limits due to executive privilege.
You didn't know? Cheney caught a SERIOUS CASE of STFU, baby!
IntheMiddle, TX
Did you read the rest of the post or did you just zero in on a segment to support your snark remark?
Sure I read the whole thing. If you want to take it as snarky, thats your problem. You gave the impression that you didn't lose any money cause most was invested in oil and gas. My investments are not just with the oil companies, so I lost quite a bit. When you take into considertion how much I am paying for energy, how much I lost on other investments
I am really curious what kind of family business you have and what you pay your employees in total compensation.
My family biz is a Bar-B-Que Diner/Fresh Meat Market to which was featured on Diner's, Drive-Inn's and Dives. I co-own it with my brothers and we employ 15 to which make above minimum wage and they also have a Health/Dental Plan along with Life Insurance that my father started many years ago. We have employees that have raised families and sent kids to college, so I know we have been generous.
I said the employees portfolio didn't lose for the simple fact it is heavily invested in oil and energy stock. They lost in other holdings but the O&I kept their portfolio above the fray.
My personal investments are heavily in Oil and Energy because this is how I was raised in Texas.
We can argue all day but in the end nothing is going to change. Obama will do something drastic to please the left and when he is gone Republicans will overturn it and then Dems come back and change it..so on and so on. Meanwhile another generation will be in cyberspace whacking away at each other.
I gues activist judges are a good thing if they advocate for the greed-head crowd. Take a look at the latest ruling regarding Skillings, today.
Excellent poke in the eye drive by. The Republicans use the phrase "activist judge" all the time until the ruling favors them.
I love how oil companies complain about how the moratorium harms oil jobs during a crisis - that THEY caused - which is destroying the jobs of fishermen, the tourist industry, and all of the support industries that are attached to those jobs.
The entire Gulf Coast economy just got eviserated because of these jerks, but heaven forbid anything should ever negatively affect them!
"What a little dictator Obama is becoming. He's got to have a direct line to his commie friend Hugo Chavez."
Johonna Smith absolutely no civility no respect, that's why our country is struggling today, while the Media Frenzy teaches Ordinary Americans to Spar with each other, the Congress does business as usual not helping the American people because we get too easily distracted.
Try Contributing to our great country and stop taking pot shots about matters that appear to be somewhat elusive to you.
It appears more than distain for our President is going here, seems some deeper issues are at play.
It's time for Americans to come together and start addressing real issues rather than letting the Media or deeper issues take center stage.
One has to wonder what would satisfy a voive such as this,
Go tell that to Barack "I won" Obama.
Civility and respect. Sure.
JoAnnaSmith:
So the rule is because you feel another is not civil or shows no respect then it is ok for you to do the same? That is what you are saying in your comment is it not?
Just as June, FL stated. You get one person who thinks another is not civil or shows no respect and they think it is then ok for them not to be civil and to show no respect, and so on until just like a domino effect everyone thinks it is ok not to be civil or to show no respect. Yep, June FL was correct. You do add to this domino effect JoAnnaSmith.
No disrepect JoAnnaSmith. Just calling it as you see it.
And I care because . . . . .?
You're the one that talks about the "tea-baggers" a lot, correct? You're just like anyone else around here pal.
No disrespect CA. Just calling it as I see it.
JoAnnaSmith:
If you could care less JoAnna then why bother taking the time to reply. You are so predictable. You are so easy to rattle and would be so easy to take apart. But I'll leave that to others. And no, I am not the only one who speaks of the tea baggers from time to time. But I have as many here have. And when and if they come up again I'll speak of them once again. And if you don't like it or when all those others around here speak of them or disagree with you, then why don't you just leave. the blog We know the answer to that don't we JoAnna.
I just took a peek at CNN and I saw pictures of the oil that as washed up on the beaches of Pensacola, FL. This is a SAD situation that is not getting any better. I also saw an article stating that the judge that lifted the moritorium will NOT issue a stay.
We are starting to see the beginnings of what reckless oil drilling has wrought. I think that it is harder for people to understand the utter devistation that this oil spill is doing to the Gulf until it hits them upside the head - and hard. I do not live anywhere near the Gulf Coast, so I cannot experience what this devistation smells like or feels like. It took me looking at pictures to understand the extent of the devistation that BP has unleashed upon us, especially when it has reached the sands in Pensacola.
And yet - Gov. Jindal wants to drill more. The Judge in this case says it is OK to drill more.
I have heard the arguments that are for and against the drilling. I understand the economic impact that this spill has on the region. However, do we REALLY want to continue drilling and polluting without ANY cogent or logical plan in case there is a catastrophe? How can some of these people - the ones who caused this devistation - sleep at night? How can the people who ENABLED this devistation sleep at night?
I submit that for some people, disaster and devistation has to be up close and personal before it registers that there is a serious problem. I submit that for those that are HAPPY to 'drill, drill, drill' do not even recognise the devistation that they have wrought. They are like a child - one whom you tell NOT to put their finger in the fire because it is hot - who will play around it, light matches and then get their fingers as CLOSE as they can to the fire - standing on one foot, hopping. When they trip and fall into the fire, we then have to make a trip to the hopsital because of the severe burns this child has suffered.
Could it have been avoided? Sure. But sometimes, a hard-headed child will NOT LEARN unless they experience what they have been warned about themselves.
I think it makes sense for us to STOP drilling until we can contain this one, but there are many that have a differing opinion. I can also see the reasoning behind why people would NOT want to stop drilling. The question that I must ask is this - are we willing to choke to death in a polluted environment just so we can make money? Are we that callous to our surroundings - and our well being - that we will IGNORE the obvious? Do we think that ingesting this smelly, putrid, disgusting 'stuff' that we will NOT have serious medical issues in the future?
I guess the future is not important.
Money is not important when youare dying, either.
Pietro, I agree with you but I understand the concerns in the region that the oil companies will move the drilling rigs from the Gulf to other locations where they can put this huge investment in equipment and engineers to work resulting in long term (a year or more) loss of drilling in the Gulf.
Is there any way to keep the drilling platforms from leaving? If there is it would lessen the concerns of the people in the Gulf.
Dennis - that's a good point. I don't have the answer to the question though. I guess this is the quandry that many find themselves in - do we drill more and risk getting sick - but get money - or don't drill and we will be more healthy - but poor.
I can see and appreciate their concerns on both sides of this coin.
Fascinating.
I really wish we could get past the thinking that President Obama hates this country, doesn't want the best for us all, etc. I never supported one thing that George Bush did but I always gave him credit for wanting the best for the country and trying to achieve it. Why isn't President Obama given that same respect?
Ummm... Maybe cause he's black?
My take on these right wing nuts is they come here day after day and b!tch and moan about how President Obama hates the country etc... when in reality their the ones who hate this country.
Listen to some of the cr@pthey come up with! They toss around 'ism's' & other gibberish and it's blatantly obvious that 99.9% of then don't know what the hell they're talking about! Nothing but a bunch of ditto/beckerheads being fed their daily dose of HATE!
United we stand & divided we fall...
Ps: You earned my vote Steeler Fan! And sorry about the loss to the Blackhawk's!
Fiesty:
You have the audacity to criticize. Your azz has never spilled anything but hate and contempt for anyone that do not agree with you. It is amazing how you try to play the role of the afflicted when in essence all you do is play the race card game. As an African American I get tired of people like you using my race as an excuse to defend against someone else's dislike of Obama.
People like you keep this country divided. You sit on your fat azz all day with your little peanut gallery and attempt to chastize those who do not like your brand of politics all the while throwing race around to support your childish rants. Every F%^&** day you throw race out there.
WTF is damn Beckerhead? I can ask you are you a Olberd^%k ?
You need to check yourself trick.
Hmmm.... is someone talking to me?
Nah! Just the wind blowin again..
Every F%^&** day you throw race out there.
_________________
Considering the source... I was going to let your rant go...
But you full of sh!t AND a liar to BOOT!
I'm no longer going to let you right wing nuts spew your BS unchallenged!
WHEN have I ever mentioned race on a daily basis?
You run off at the mouth to much ITM! And I'll take my 'peanut gallery' any day over a miserable SOB like you!
Are you really so conceited that because you're supposedly a black man you SPEAK for all blacks? Get OVER yourself will ya?
You REALLY do need to get back to those anger management classes or at the very least up the med's!
We can argue all day but in the end nothing is going to change. Obama will do something drastic to please the left and when he is gone Republicans will overturn it and then Dems come back and change it..so on and so on. Meanwhile another generation will be in cyberspace whacking away at each other.
Well your right about the so on and so on. Honestly, in the first election I could vote, I voted Republican cause thats the I was raised and thats what I believed. But after 1980 and the Reagan years, I began to see things in a different light. Maybe lifes experiences taught differently that my Dad did. But I klnow in my heart and with all I know to be true, Republicans are not the same as what I grew up with. I know none of us can be perfect all the time but the manner and tone of Republicans today defy all logic. I know, I work with a bunch and I am immoral, stupid, need to be shot and I hear it everyday.
You and Mixed Bag and NJNBNJ, all think I resent someone else success. Hardly. I respect some one thats creative, driven, generous, all the traits that made this country. But that is not the way it is today in this country. Face it, you inherited your business. Would you still have it today if your father hadn't started it?
The working class to day have seen everything in their life decline. From their buying power to their retirement options. At the same time, a small group of more affluent citizens have seen their personal fortunes skyrocket. CEOs making mutimillions? Serioulsy, is any one man worth $10 million a year?
Businesses and government have made it so expensive to live and try to have a few things that I honestly don't see how some folks are raising families. I hope you don't fall into the same old stuff about lawsuits and such. So many states have put limits on lawsuit payouts but premiums haven't came down a bit in those states but has increased.
Don't know how I got off on this rant, I think maybe I've read too much in the past few days and need to take break.
Frank H: My experience was the same as yours. I was a Republican until Reagan, and I found that I could no longer in good conscience support the policies that the Party represented. I wonder how many others there are of our age that see it this way?
Enjoyed your comment, it was not a rant. Your story sounds similar to mine except most of my family leaned democratic although politics was not something we discussed much. I generally voted for the person not the party when old enough but I felt Abraham Lincoln represented what I thought was right and good--so I registered republican. Reagan changed the republican party and he was the last one I ever voted for--I couldn't believe the tax cuts that I didn't see, the mounting national debt, the demonization of unions as well as Government and so on. You are so right, the republican party today is nothing like the one of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower. It has instead become a self-centered and self-serving group that does not respect democracy, or the Constitution; it is determined to impose its religion, its social views on everyone else, that only republicans are entitled to govern. Fiscally conservative are two words they tout yet have not been since Reagan.
Republicans say democrats aren't for making big money; we're anti big business. That's about as far from true as it can get. There are many successful democratics and many very wealthy ones. It isn't about the free market, it is about fairness in the free market and fairness for every American whether it is taxes paid or opportunity to live life with at least the basic needs and a hand up when necessary; it is about respecting our elders by providing safety nets to which we pay as we work; about compassion for those with less by providing help for the poor and needy.
Frank:
I work in an environment (military base) that is about 99.0% Republican an I feel the pain of the 1% Democrat when it comes to discussing politics around here.
Yes I inherited the family biz and I could have become a "Pit- Master" and spent my entire life mastering Bar B Que but I chose to serve my country and ended up making a career of it. Now I can enjoy life doing what I love to do (train soldiers) as a civilian now, plus work at the biz when I go home to Houston.
See my problem with the Democrat party is all of this feeling of entitlement. That someone owes you something. I grew up in a Democratic household even though no one voted regularly nor did we discuss politics. It was just a boring subject. All I remember was how bad Reagan was but my father's biz never dropped off and he was making a lot of money at that time. My father is 69yrs old now and he told me years ago "Boy don't you ever vote Democrat""Just look at the community and you will understand". I took it to heart after i figured it out. Same old run-down buildings, same potholes, generation after generation on welfare, public housing, black on black crime, crack heads everywhere, teenage pregnancy, incarceration rates way up, etc....This what the Democrat party has done for us with all of the promises.
How do you explain the 8 years of Nixon/ Ford 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush, and 8 years of Bush. How do you explain away 28 years of Republican leadership. BTW for workers (I do not know about owners) about the only time their earning power increased was the 8 years of Clinton. In any event 28 years of republican leadership did not solve any of the problems we now have.
Repulblicans had the Presidency not the Congress. The POTUS does not hold the purse strings. (Civics 101). Earning powere increased during Clinton's term mainly because of all of the Dot.Com jobs the Internet created and he cut the military in half practically thus throwing that money at the budget shortfall.
InTheMiddle, TX
So your blaming the potholes,crime, and teen pregnacies on the Dems. Questions, when Bush had power and the House & Senate for 6 years, did anything happen to your town then? Or did things remain the same? So I'm just saying that maybe before you blame the Democrats for your town's hardships, look at what the republicans have done for it
Phillip:
I was making a general assessment to which happens to be true. My hometown has come a long way. My hometown is in Tom Delay's old district. It has benefitted tremendously from Republicans. The money that has been pumped into that area is almost unreal over the past 20 yrs. I was in the military so I haven't lived there full time in the last 20 yrs. When I retired I bought my house in the district and moved my family there. I work up at Ft. Hood 4 days a week and go home on Friday's. So yes it was a Republican to whom built these Civic Centers, Gyms, Medical Clinics, Parks, Developement of neighborhoods, malls etc.
Now let me take you out to Sheila Jackson-Lee's district. STILL DISTRAUGHT and she has had her azz in Congress forever. ENUFF said....along with Al Green's, both districts still look the same.
Judge made the wrong decision for the right reason.
Obama's moratorium is a fraud. The moratorium is based on Salazar's report recommending the shut down that was peer reviewed by 7 experts from the National Academy of Engineering. The purpose of the moratorium, as Obama stated, is to insure the protection of worker's lives and the protection of the environment. The problem is, the recommendation for the moratorium was added to the report AFTER the 7 experts had signed off. The bigger problem is, the 7 experts are strongly against the moratorium because shutting down/restarting is more dangerous than letting the rigs continue. In summary, Salazar doctored a document citing experts, they come out and Obama still ignores his experts to push his agenda at the risk of lives and the environment - his very reason for the moratorium. Now Salazar, after creating the fraud, ignores the judge's ruling. Hello Hugo.
When you consider that Obama, a Harvard attorney with no prior executive experience, selects Birnbaum, a Harvard attorney with no executive experience, to be the executive in charge of MMS and then replaces her with Bromwich, a Harvard attorney with no executive experience, you have to wonder if he just doesn't get it, or if his agenda has nothing to do with insuring the safety of off shore drilling.
We are in a crisis, and what is the first thing that Obama and Bromwich do? Change the name of MMS and reorganize. Instead of inspecting the existing operations, protecting lives and the environment, they are ordering new letterhead.
If the Federal Government had done its job the last eighteen months, wouldn't it know about the operations of these rigs. BP had 760 safety violations over the last 5 years yet the Obama administration gives them the safety award last year. Something even funnier - BP was a finalist for this years award.
It is the Federal Government's responsibility to oversee the BPs and insure the safety of lives and the envoronment. This administration has proven it cannot do that.
So maybe the right decision is a moratorium. Maybe we should have a moratorium on everything this administration is involved with.
I would have expected the folks who run this page to update the info. My apologies if I missed the update. It probably wouldn't impact on the cross-comments if they had...
Judge paves way for deepwater drilling in Gulf
By the CNN Wire Staff
June 24, 2010 2:43 p.m. EDT
New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) -- Paving the way for deepwater drilling to resume in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal judge on Thursday denied a request to keep a moratorium in place pending a government appeal.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, Louisiana, issued a preliminary injunction against the six-month ban Tuesday. The government had asked Feldman to delay lifting the ban until an appeals court reviewed the issue later this summer.
The moratorium was imposed by President Obama on May 27 after an April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig off the coast of Louisiana triggered an underwater oil gusher. It prohibited drilling in more than 500 feet of water and prevented new permits from being issued.
In an emergency hearing Thursday, the judge denied the government's motion to stay his decision pending appeal "for the same reasons given" Tuesday for issuing the injunction.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1
I saw this. This article prompted my post.
Yes, I located your post, but was your commentary altered in any way by the updated information?
Also, the disparaging post from one Kevin- is they type of comment that thoughtful and civil members of this blog (of which you appear to be one) I would hope to see either condemned, lampooned (as I tried to do), or ignored. Any post that refers to those they are addressing in Kevin-'s fashion is certain to incite only the very worst in replies, and in temperaments.
I don't claim to know the quality of your other posts, Kevin-, I am only commenting on the one I have seen.
Actually, my comentary was HEAVILY influenced by pictures of the oil spill on the beach in Pensacola, FL after I had read news od the judge's decision. I saw people actually kneeling over the muck and it prompted me to think is all of this REALLY worth it? People are going to get sick from that crap... so is it all worth it? Is the money THAT important that it is worth fouling the eco-system?
You know, I'm getting tired of Conservative Bloggers who use the same damn idiotic, illogical, backwater talking points and I have to come in, and beat your asses with facts. I mean, what is it with you guys? You come in here, and come up with the most outlandish, asinine Shi'ite that I can only wonder where you get them. Your level of ignorance is so mind blowing that I'm convinced that grant for a clinical study on the entire Republican Party is in order, and this oil spill is just one of the many dessert toppers I have came across.
It looks to me that many of those 'Conservative' posters are just spewing stuff to get a rise out of people. I don't think for one moment that they REALLY believe what they say (or write). I say lower your blood pressure and only answer those that have a cogent point to bring across. SOMETIMES there is a conservative blogger that actually has something interesting to say.
Kevin:
Man WTF are talking about? What facts have you presented and who have you went after. You're talking like Conservatives run from you.
...and what we are suppose to be SCUUUURED of you....lol
Go somewhere and sit your stupid azz down.
You are presented with the "DUMB AZZ AWARD" for the day.
I'm with you Pietro on that theory Pietro!
It's 50% fantasy & 50% stupidity coming from the right wing nuts... Hey what ever helps them sleep at night is fine by me!
Exellent Post Kevin - Keep up the good work! ;0)
Dear Pietro,
"It looks to me that many of those 'Conservative' posters are just spewing stuff to get a rise out of people."
Based on the poster above (Feisty Redhead) it would appear that there is more than enough of that behavior to go around. Is this the person that you (Ron) said I should treat with respect? I am truly baffled.
Kevin.....Relax, tough guy. Not sure what you mean because I haven't scrolled thru this whole board yet, but last time I saw you I think you were tossing up mindless hypothetical situations designed to justify illegal immigration. I'm gonna go investigate just what has your panties in a bunch but, I gotta tell ya, if Crusty Bonehead thinks it was great it's not looking good for you , Big Kev.
Let me now add that the replies to Kevin from the conservative posters are generally of the same, unfortunate stripe...sad
like the oil disaster, all appear to be at least a little "soiled"...
Diogenes - I don't always agree with conservative posters, but there are a few on here that I just don't listen to because they don't bring anything to the table. It is ALWAYS some snarky comment saying that our President is this, our President is that. Look, I really don't care if a person does not like the President. What I get tired of most is that there are NO new ideas brought to the table. If someone doesn't at least back up their points with some links (especially when asked), or who insist they are right because 'they said so', then those posters get skipped by me.
I have gone round and round with conservatives like Bill, Fairfax, Va, Mixed Bag (you may not be a conservative, but you act like one and I think you are wrong), Living in LA and even CU Farley (believe it or not). Is there some respect there for them (as they have for me MOST of the time)? I think so. We can disagree and laugh at the predictable thinking, but when it is all said and done, we agree that we are all Americans.
I admit that I have been over the top at times, but I am trying NOT to be that way because I have LEARNED and MATURED from being on this blog. Now, I'll fall off the wagon once in a while, but I have to try real hard to check myself and only answer those posts that challenge my arguments with some sort of intellect. It does NO GOOD to get into a 'screaming match' with those who insist on put-downs and snarky commentary ALL of the time (sometimes it is amusing, then it gets annoying).
Of course, if you are conservative and WRONG, then its on...
Seriously, though, what I posted is what I believe is true. IF whomever is posting and their 'goal' is to get a rise out of someone, then I am less inclined to respond. We have some pretty good thinkers on here - from both the left and the right - and a lot of times what they post is pretty profound. Those are the ones that I would be more concerned about.