3 ms·

I think the author's insinuation that this is an attempt not to "let a good crisis go to waste" drained a lot of the credibility from the article. It's clear t

I think the author's insinuation that this is an attempt not to "let a good crisis go to waste" drained a lot of the credibility from the article. It's clear that Obama is a huge proponent of offshore drilling and that he won't do anything to jeopardize it. It's odd how a conservative essay tries to paint Obama as someone who would stop all drilling when it's so far from the truth. I think that ending all offshore drilling should certainly be under serious consideration after a disaster of this magnitude... there is no economic justification at present for risking the environmental damage.

tkahn6 16y ago
I agree with everything up to the last statement after the ellipsis. There is economic justification for risking environmental damage. More offshore drilling = cheaper oil; More offshore drilling = more jobs (to name a couple). I don't think this is a simple issue. The debate is a valid one. Nuclear energy is dangerous but we do it anyway and similarly, it's not like all of a sudden deep water oil rigs are going to start failing left and right; statistically that is highly improbable.
- grandalf 16y ago
  It's not fair to compare oil to nuclear. Nuclear offers so many cost advantages, while adding some oil wells in American waters only minimally impacts the price of oil. Jobs should never be a justification for anything (if job creation is the goal, simply banning the combines that harvest corn would create tens of thousands of field worker jobs). Deep water oil rigs will fail and when they do untold environmental damage will be wrought. We simply can't control the ocean's currents or seismic events. There is absolutely no reason that a first world nation should settle for offshore drilling and the environmental impacts/risks it creates.
Daniel_Newby 16y ago
I think it added credibility. Obama is the President. With a stroke of the pen, he could have sent a couple of carrier strike groups to add their vast resources of nuclear electricity and machine shops and freight, suspended all environmental regulations regarding deep water oil skimmers unless supported by clear evidence of harm, and so forth. A strong practical leader like Teddy Roosevelt or Ike would have moved heaven and earth to solve the problem. Instead we got Operation Boot on the Neck.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Do you honestly think that if Obama were the sort of guy who'd do those things that he would have been elected? No president has ever stood up to an industry as powerful/influential as the modern oil industry (and none ever will).
  - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
    Yes! There is enormous demand for actual leadership, as evidenced by the Tea Parties. The problem is that Obama is standing up to the oil industry. He could have gone to the industry execs and boards with no shame and asked "Who do I have to blow to plug this epic environmental disaster? Who do I have to pardon?" Instead he put His Boot on BP's Neck, and put together a relief fund with opaque management. And the well still leaks, and enormous numbers of people and machines sit idle.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      The tea parties are a very small movement and it is not my impression that they are seeking some sort of "strong man" leader type. Each of the top 4 GOP candidates in 2008 ran as a strong man and none was elected. Obama, meanwhile, won in the same way George W. Bush did in 2000 -- as an unproven Frodo Baggins type who inspired people who hoped he'd fill the shoes they imagined for him. If Obama were serious about the issue he'd be talking about stopping offshore drilling. Instead he's singling out BP as if there is some sort of gross negligence rather than just a low probability / high impact outcome happening.

tkahn6 16y ago

I agree with everything up to the last statement after the ellipsis. There is economic justification for risking environmental damage. More offshore drilling = cheaper oil; More offshore drilling = more jobs (to name a couple). I don't think this is a simple issue. The debate is a valid one. Nuclear energy is dangerous but we do it anyway and similarly, it's not like all of a sudden deep water oil rigs are going to start failing left and right; statistically that is highly improbable.

grandalf 16y ago
It's not fair to compare oil to nuclear. Nuclear offers so many cost advantages, while adding some oil wells in American waters only minimally impacts the price of oil. Jobs should never be a justification for anything (if job creation is the goal, simply banning the combines that harvest corn would create tens of thousands of field worker jobs). Deep water oil rigs will fail and when they do untold environmental damage will be wrought. We simply can't control the ocean's currents or seismic events. There is absolutely no reason that a first world nation should settle for offshore drilling and the environmental impacts/risks it creates.

Daniel_Newby 16y ago

I think it added credibility. Obama is the President. With a stroke of the pen, he could have sent a couple of carrier strike groups to add their vast resources of nuclear electricity and machine shops and freight, suspended all environmental regulations regarding deep water oil skimmers unless supported by clear evidence of harm, and so forth. A strong practical leader like Teddy Roosevelt or Ike would have moved heaven and earth to solve the problem. Instead we got Operation Boot on the Neck.

grandalf 16y ago
Do you honestly think that if Obama were the sort of guy who'd do those things that he would have been elected? No president has ever stood up to an industry as powerful/influential as the modern oil industry (and none ever will).
- Daniel_Newby 16y ago
  Yes! There is enormous demand for actual leadership, as evidenced by the Tea Parties. The problem is that Obama is standing up to the oil industry. He could have gone to the industry execs and boards with no shame and asked "Who do I have to blow to plug this epic environmental disaster? Who do I have to pardon?" Instead he put His Boot on BP's Neck, and put together a relief fund with opaque management. And the well still leaks, and enormous numbers of people and machines sit idle.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    The tea parties are a very small movement and it is not my impression that they are seeking some sort of "strong man" leader type. Each of the top 4 GOP candidates in 2008 ran as a strong man and none was elected. Obama, meanwhile, won in the same way George W. Bush did in 2000 -- as an unproven Frodo Baggins type who inspired people who hoped he'd fill the shoes they imagined for him. If Obama were serious about the issue he'd be talking about stopping offshore drilling. Instead he's singling out BP as if there is some sort of gross negligence rather than just a low probability / high impact outcome happening.