PDA

View Full Version : Obama To Drill For Oil Off Coast


Lyle
03-31-2010, 01:07 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?ref=todayspaper

The poor ocean. Happy cars and planes!

Whatfur
04-01-2010, 08:50 AM
Poor polling deflection bullshit.

Whatfur
04-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Like I alluded. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/31/quotes-of-the-day-311/)

JonIrenicus
04-01-2010, 03:27 PM
Where are all the democrats who were acting like opening up drilling off our coasts was like slicing baby dolphins in half?



I remember quite a bit of blow back on that during the 2008 election. Like many other talking points, it seems this was another argument thrown out there as a debators point that no one really cared about.

bjkeefe
04-01-2010, 04:49 PM
Where are all the democrats who were acting like opening up drilling off our coasts was like slicing baby dolphins in half?

You will see it. Count on it.

Lyle
04-01-2010, 07:13 PM
That's actually what I was going to write and I was going to mention the dolphins too.... haha. It's too comical, it's too comical.

Lyle
04-01-2010, 07:15 PM
Where, where? I'm looking and don't see anything. Hold me up bjkeefe, I can't see.

Wonderment
04-01-2010, 07:30 PM
Also, silence from the Dem. Party Machinery on this:

The Criminal NSA Eavesdropping Program

by Glenn Greenwald

While torture and aggressive war may have been the most serious crimes which the Bush administration committed, its warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens was its clearest and most undeniable lawbreaking. Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker yesterday became the third federal judge -- out of three who have considered the question -- to find that Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program was illegal ....

That means that all 3 federal judges to consider the question have concluded that Bush's NSA program violated the criminal law (FISA). That law provides that anyone who violates it has committed a felony and shall be subject to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. The law really does say that. Just click on that link and you'll see. It's been obvious for more than four years that Bush, Cheney, NSA Director (and former CIA Director) Michael Hayden and many other Bush officials broke the law -- committed felonies -- in spying on Americans without warrants. Yet another federal judge has now found their conduct illegal. If we were a country that actually lived under The Rule of Law, this would be a huge story, one that would produce the same consequences for the lawbreakers as a bank robbery, embezzlement or major drug dealing. But since we're not such a country, it isn't and it doesn't.

Although news reports are focusing (appropriately) on the fact that Bush's NSA program was found to be illegal, the bulk of Judge Walker's opinion was actually a scathing repudiation of the Obama DOJ. In fact, the opinion spent almost no time addressing the merits of the claim that the NSA program was legal. That's because the Obama DOJ -- exactly like the Bush DOJ in the case before Judge Taylor -- refused to offer legal justifications to the court for this eavesdropping. Instead, the Obama DOJ took the imperial and hubristic position that the court had no right whatsoever to rule on the legality of the program because (a) plaintiffs could not prove they were subjected to the secret eavesdropping (and thus lacked "standing" to sue) and (b) the NSA program was such a vital "state secret" that courts were barred from adjudicating its legality.

Those were the arguments that Judge Walker scathingly rejected. All of the court's condemnations of the DOJ's pretense to imperial power were directed at the Obama DOJ's "state secrets" argument (which is exactly the same radical and lawless version, as TPM compellingly documented, used by the Bush DOJ to such controversy). From the start, the Obama DOJ has engaged in one extraordinary maneuver after the next to shield this criminal surveillance program from judicial scrutiny. Indeed, their stonewalling at one point became so extreme that the court actually threatened the Obama DOJ with sanctions. And what TPM calls the Obama DOJ's "Bush-mimicking state secrets defense" has been used by them in one case after the next to conceal and shield from judicial review a wide range of Bush crimes -- including torture, renditions and surveillance. As the Electronic Frontiers Foundation put it: "In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's."

That's why this decision is such a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration: because it is their Bush-copying tactics, used repeatedly to cover up government crimes, which the court yesterday so emphatically rejected. And it's thus no surprise that media accounts tie the Obama administration to the cover-up of this program at least as much as the Bush administration. See, for instance: Charlie Savage and James Risen in The New York Times ("A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency's program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration's effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush"); Time ("The judge's opinion is pointed and fiercely critical of the Obama Administration's Justice Department lawyers" and "The judge claims that the Obama Administration is attempting to place itself above the law"). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also previously condemned the Bush/Obama "state secrets" position as abusive and lawless.....

JonIrenicus
04-01-2010, 08:21 PM
Also, silence from the Dem. Party Machinery on this:

Sometimes I wonder the thought process of people like Glenn.



Even if an act is illegal, does this mean it is to be prosecuted? There is something called prosecutorial discretion. It does not matter that a president has broken the law, so have we all in a thousand different ways, I did it multiple times today going over the speed limit, that does not mean ever instance warrants prosecution. And we have NO stomach for doing so with current and past presidents.

It takes a special kind of fool not to see this, which Greenwald provides in spades. I suppose had he lived in colonial times he would have been clamoring for the removal of Thomas Jefferson for his unconstitutional deal with Napolean with the whole the Louisiana purchase and its questionable constitutionality.

Idiots. Letter of the law fools. We grant discretion to prosecutors for a reason, and though people like Greenwald would wield that discretion like a starving jackal before crippled game, that does not mean that sensible adults ought to as well.

Whatfur
04-01-2010, 09:55 PM
Sometimes I wonder the thought process of people like Glenn.



Even if an act is illegal, does this mean it is to be prosecuted? There is something called prosecutorial discretion. It does not matter that a president has broken the law, so have we all in a thousand different ways, I did it multiple times today going over the speed limit, that does not mean ever instance warrants prosecution. And we have NO stomach for doing so with current and past presidents.

It takes a special kind of fool not to see this, which Greenwald provides in spades. I suppose had he lived in colonial times he would have been clamoring for the removal of Thomas Jefferson for his unconstitutional deal with Napolean with the whole the Louisiana purchase and its questionable constitutionality.

Idiots. Letter of the law fools. We grant discretion to prosecutors for a reason, and though people like Greenwald would wield that discretion like a starving jackal before crippled game, that does not mean that sensible adults ought to as well.

You paint some fine pictures. ;o)

Wonderment
04-01-2010, 10:08 PM
Even if an act is illegal, does this mean it is to be prosecuted?

It's good of you to make these decisions for us, Jon, about what crimes to consider serious enough to prosecute.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that spying on people without a warrant is as trivial as say tax evasion. But we're dealing with major war criminals here.

The prosecution went after Al Capone, a known murderer, for tax evasion, because that was the best case the prosecution had.

Likewise, the best case to get mass murderers like Bush and Cheney may be on the slam dunk prosecution for violating basic civil rights.

Stapler Malone
04-01-2010, 10:38 PM
can't wait to hear Pinkerton explain how this shows Obama is a stooge of the Environmentalist Lobby.

Lyle
04-02-2010, 12:39 AM
They didn't violate any basic civil rights. You go to jail for cussing out Bush yet? They didn't pass the alien and sedition acts my friend, and because of Muslim terrorism it wasn't like Bush didn't have a good excuse to push the envelope.

Jon's right... there are a lot of fools in this world.

Wonderment
04-02-2010, 02:38 AM
Jon's right... there are a lot of fools in this world.


Good to know that you two are not among them.

Ocean
04-02-2010, 07:07 AM
Good to know that you two are not among them.

Classy.

listener
04-05-2010, 01:46 PM
Again, I wasn't sure where to post this, but since Obama's offshore drilling policy has elicited differing responses from various places along the political spectrum:

I like Frank Rich as a political commentator. I tend to agree with his views. Which is partly why I don't often read his columns, as I don't need that much outside reinforcement of my own partisan perspectives. But I thought that in this column (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html?pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me), Rich did a good, evenhanded job of enumerating and providing insight into some of the many, often wildly contradictory, images of the President (is he Superman coming to save us, or the new Hitler bent on destroying us?) that are commonly held and expressed by the media and others.

listener
04-06-2010, 11:42 PM
Slightly off-topic, but definitely germane to how we calculate the costs vs. benefits of our energy sources, is this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#36204374) in-depth report.

Starwatcher162536
04-15-2010, 03:09 PM
As of now there is little resistance to Obama's US Outer Continental Shelf 5 year plan because it is still rather questionable if it is a serious proposal.

There are a number of interim actions such as scientific analysis that must be carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that drilling in these areas will be compliant with the National Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Amongst others) before the US Minerals Management Service will even consider moving the permitting process forward.

Neither Obama's public announcement or fiscal 2010 budget included a request for congress to fund the necessary study's.

Another thing that makes me question this proposals sincerity is that it calls for much of the mid-Atlantic areas to be available for leasing considerations as early as 2011 under Lease Sale 220.

The problem with this is that many of these areas have not had any seismic data gathered since the early 1980's. The image processing advances alone warrants new thorough electromagnetic and side-scan surveys, and I'm sure industry will also want more up to date geological and geochemical sampling before making any binding agreements. These things require significant lead time. So right from the get go unrealistic time tables are being proposed.

This whole thing reminds me of the occasional proposal promising to usher in a new age of nuclear power that is brought up from time to time that is fated merely to languish and die in various advisory boards of the NRC.