Rachael Maddow talks smack on oil containment
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37563648#37563648

I'm not always crazy about the lady but she hit it hard on this one.

Basically saying that among all the publicity about trying to plug the leak, the actual work (or lack of, rather) being done to sop up and contain oil already spilled is nothing short of disgraceful.

The only thing that needs to be plugged in this case is the hole on that dude's face. He can blab on and on about intellectual this and intellectual that, technology and whose fault it is, yet never offer any original ideas about a solution to the problem, nor extract any ideas from the so called experts they interview.

The entire interview with the Tulane professor was wasted on laying blame rather than ask him what should be done in this case. An event such as this could be the pinnacle of his academic career via providing a plethora of solutions to the spill. Yet the interview is null.

Perhaps they could just admit that intellectuals cannot come up with magic unicorn dust to clean up a disaster of this magnitude.

Between Madcow and Olderman I don't know who the bigger non-contributor is.

What, are you on the payroll running flack for BP? Ivory tower intellectuals are supposed to be able to offer engineering fixes out of thin air? These things take time and money, and the devotion of that to actual fixes has been quite weak. I'm sorry the guy rubbed you the wrong way but he was not selling himself as the guy with answers. Maddow points out that the low tech that we know works at least somewhat - booms and skimmers - is only being weakly applied at best.

At least one promising invention for improved skimming first invented in the 70s has languished on the shelf for about 20 years:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36395/

Even Kevin Costner and brother's device might have promise but the $24 million they've invested in it, while large by private individual standards, is tiny, tiny compared to the amount spent by govt. to supposedly monitor such things or spent by industry to enrich its executives and shareholders - shareholders now bailing in droves as they signed on for fast profit, not costly amelioration, thank you very much. Is it a lot to ask of industry to back up its claims of safety, oh you bet its safe, with serious funds to actually implement known solutions?

Imagine a fleet of medium sized, or even small sized tankers with many giant versions of Costner's device and aggressive means for skimming? Instead we have BP spreading wholesale amounts of high strength detergent, a proprietary blend - sorry but the composition is a trade secret - that even BP admits has not been well tested.

So what is your contribution to this? Why shouldn't the hole in your face be plugged?

Good job, you just provided more info in a few paragraphs than the 11 minutes of blathering that took up airtime, yet accomplished nothing. Someone needs to hand the producers of that show a copy of Strunk and White.

Once again, why bring in some professor with expertise in the area only to reinforce the *****ing that nothing has been done??

Where's the beef?

Those of us that shorted BP at opening bell this morning had quite a good day. Capitalism at it's best.

madcow?

a dude?

that's pretty original and intelligent, mr.anti intellectual. good job at deflecting the argument (not)

The sqeaky wheel doesn't get the greese til it squeaks.

a little tough on the guy, aren't you?

He has a point. Everyone is so concerned about bit$%ng and blaming... we already know whose fault it is.

Say something useful, an entire episode of redundancy and rhetoric. Did you also notice how they abbreviated the doctor's interview / edited it?

may I paraphrase a quote from her? "I don't mean to toot our own horn, but we think the oil industry is to blame for not being prepared...not to toot our horn or anything, though...."

was the industry prepared?

yes or no.

(i believe "no" is the quite obvious answer. if you vote "yes", then please head to the gulf and enjoy a good swim and fish dinner. either tomorrow or anytime in the next five years. ok? is all the obfuscating over?)

you must misunderstand my position.

my answer is the obvious ' n o '... thats why that episode was pointless.

agreed, if that was the point of the episode.

One point of it for me is that the free market will not police itself. There's money to made in taking risks. After the Ex. Valdez, the Santa Barbara spill, and the Ixtec spill (for starters) you would think the industry would know that public displeasure at oil spills, fouled beaches, etc. could result in loss of access to future drilling.

This was apparently not high on their list of concerns. Maddow put an exclamation point on the issue. The first guy did seem a bit cocky but the subsequent guests struck me as solid.

but they did learn. Even the doctor said "they are using implements that were designed after the Valdez.... "

Even if they dumped a few Mil into R+D for cleanup before the accident, I can't imagine it solving the disaster we have on our hands now.

the best preparation is avoiding accidents.

If corporations are to be treated like individuals, how come we can't sentence them to life, or the death penalty?

That's a rather simplistic indictment of free markets.
They can and do police themselves. They prepare for emergencies. Sometimes their preparations end up as being inadequate. Sometimes "assumptions" are wrong, but that speaks to the individuals involved; not the weakness of free markets.
Thinking back a few years to the failures of the Apollo 1 spacecraft that resulting in the deaths of the three astronauts. That project was under the strictest of government controls, regulation, oversight and cooperation, yet three men died. The response from the free market contractors resulted in a superior spacecraft.
The alternative to free markets, is of course, top-down, government-controlled, markets. For examples of how well that works, compare the Tatra, or any of the cars made for the masses under the Soviet regime, to any car produced for the masses in any free market country.

Because the U S Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom) bestowed on them all the RIGHTS, evidently, with NONE of the RESPONSIBILITIES.

So, they got the cream, but without the crap, unlike you and me.


Oh yeah, like Robert Vaughn, told Clint Eastwood in "Dirty Harry", (1971)

"I would love to personally officiate at your public crucifixion".

More about "Free Market" and how they actually work, ( as opposed to how they are viewed by people who want collectivism).

I am currently working on a 24 inch gas pipeline. The Contractor is a capitalistic venture, desiring to make a profit. Yet they view safety as a prime concern. Driven, no doubt by their greed.) They actually have a drawing every week when there have been no injuries for 5 $50 gift cards for all hands. No government program required this; no federal oversight mandated it. This company thought it was a good investment of the capital. My employer ( BGE--the pipe line owner) thought it was such a good idea that they are matching the money so now 10 people get $50 each week as an added incentive to be safe.
Free Market capitalism does work--it has occasional lapses due to faulty human, but on the whole it delivers the highest quality goods desired by the public and the lowest achievable cost.