I don't know if it's so much a lack of intellectual honesty as it is a misguided instance of public appeasement.

The public keeps crying for the president to do something, but there's absolutely nothing he can do at this point. This isn't a natural disaster like a hurricane, it's an industrial accident through negligence. Therefore, it's industry's responsibility to fix it.

The most the president can honestly do right now is start the process to investigate what happened in order to develop policies to prevent similar disasters in the future. In other words, more corporate regulation and oversight.

Speaking of an industrial accident causing an ecological disaster, is this a good time to talk about tort reform again?

Had the government proposed more rigorous oversight of the oil extraction industry prior to this accident, Rory........err, Hank, would have been crying like a baby with a loaded diaper, calling Obama a socialist.

Sh!t, Hank............you don't know if you're punched or bored.

And what happens if the berms become a larger, longer-lasting detriment to the marshes? Where's the sand going to come from? Who's going to move it all? How long will it take?

No one knows, do they?

That's the problem with pandering to appease the base: rash irrational decisions.

From your posts it's obvious you don't get out much, so we'll keep this simple for ya.

Coastlines are not all sand. And of those portions that are sand, not all sand is alike. Removing sand from one area to build berms in another creates new problems in the area of removal; navigation, erosion, ecological, etc. Building berms to keep the oil out also keeps the water out. The marshes dry up, ergo, no marsh. What have you accomplished? You've gone from an oil-damaged marsh to a dead dry ex-marsh. Congratulations?

Stick to taking pictures, it'll help us all.

No, I would not agree. History has shown that Mother Nature can repair herself from a disaster such as this given adequate time. Those wetlands' ecosystem requires both salt and freshwater to survive. It's a chemical balance. Building berms will starve the marsh of the needed salt water, upsetting the balance, thus possibly doing far more damage. Depending on the size of the berms they could quite possibly affect the aerodynamics of the offshore flows. We're talking miles and miles of coastline. LA's coastline is nearly all marshland, so which neighboring state is going to allow their beach be torn up to contribute to LA? Screwing with the coastline in the past has already destroyed much of the marshland in that area which contributed to the destructive force of Katrina.

Harley owns you Hank.

He maintains his calm demeanor and presents facts...while you babble on with the juvenile name callin'.

He wins... you lose... simple as that.

Sure there are stories all over the news media about the spill, but how much of it is accurate?

It's only now coming to light that the scope of this disaster is far greater than has been communicated, and it may be twice as big as Valdez.

The original post on this thread was on a story that exposed how much the information getting out of the gulf is being controlled as much as possible by BP with help from our government entities. BP said publicly that no one was being forbidden from viewing the areas affected by the spill, yet in the field reporters and the general public are still being forbidden to access many of the affected areas to document the tragedy. They say one thing and do another without consequence.

Those actions alone put an inexcusable spin on what the general public sees and hears about this disaster.

Perhaps this doesn't matter any more, because now this spill has graduated to the worst environmental disaster in the history of our nation, and no amount of spin or cover up will contain that fact.

That's damn funny right there.

Not exactly how I would characterize their exchange there Quatre Sel

+ many Sky

But how is this cover up any different than any other mega-disaster or major fuk up that's happened in recent history?

You don't think the media is there to actually report do you?

You wingnuts sure do circle the wagons and make excuses for one another!

C'mon, really? KK did this... KK did that? You gotta be freakin' kiddin' me!

Hey, there's definitely a time and a place for juvenile name callin'!

But not when one party is presenting a reasonable argument.... and I think you'll find that KK is very respectful of reasonable arguments as well.

The problem is... you right-wing fanatics never present one.

Fixed that for ya

No.

The Coast Guard has given LA permission to build one berm as a prototype on BP's dime, all other berms will be paid for by state and federal funds. (That's right, Hank, more federal spending. But being a proponent of the berms, you should be okay with that.)

The goal: divert the currents to force the oil onto the barrier islands. Yeah, those islands washed away by Katrina that they're still trying to rebuild with dredging. The sand needed for that operation will go for the berm. What happens when the islands don't get rebuilt? Again, where do they get the sand? They've mentioned getting it from a location only a mile from the islands. What affect will the underwater borrow pits have on erosion of the existing islands? What happens when we change the course of ocean currents? How many scientists have studied and approved of this work? It'll take months just to build one prototype berm. Is the cost/benefit worth it?

But all that doesn't really matter, does it. It's a nice feel-good action to appease the crying public that doesn't undertand rational reality.

Consider the Ixtoc spill in '79 and the infamous Valdez. The Ixtoc spill lasted almost 10 months, and spewed about 3 million barrels which hit Texas shores. And there are still remnants of the spill in PWS, but both areas have recovered more or less.

Interesting point about the Ixtoc spill, Mexico avoided paying compensation by asserting sovereign immunity. What's the B in BP stand for?

Hank, my facts are from today. Jindal hadn't been informed of the CG's decision when the bulletin I read was written.

Yeah, taking action without studying the after-affects is like--oh, I dunno--a Deepwater Horizon accident maybe?

Mmhmmm. And where was Exxon's HQs in '89, and they finally paid what percentage?

Civil suits are done. Supreme Court closed that deal couple of years ago. Exxon drug it out for nearly 20 years and ended up paying mere pennies on the dollar. You don't think BP learned something from that?

So all the global climatologists are now coastline rehabilitation experts as well, huh?

Awesome.

How long does the game where we all pretend to know every f'n thing last anyway?

I thought it was refreshing for Palin to blame Obama for taking big oil's money. Does she EVER think before opening her pie hole? A quick check shows the McCain Palin team took roughly four times as much money as did Obama. Of course its a dan shame ANY politician is allowed to take money form corporations or unions. We desperatly need the type of campaign reform McCain was for before he was against it.

When do you think Palin will again say "Drill baby drill"?

Anyone who places this at Obamas feet is a political POS. So tired of that crap. Of course if W. was still in office the looney lefties would be asking for his head on a plate. Glad it has not gotten that nasty......yet and the majority of reps have not went there. Yes I have heard some of the usuals attempt it but few aside from the looney left care what the looney right has to saythese days. Hopefully this will get solved and BP will be held accountable without the pol grandstanding that so often takes these situations over.