# The Oil "Spill"



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

If you haven't already seen it, this article with an interactive map on the size of the oil "spill" was in the Toronto Star this morning.

The Star article & interactive map
Oil spill would cover much of southern Ontario - thestar.com

Interactive Map Home Page
IfItWasMyHome.com - Visualizing the BP Oil Disaster


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

It's incredibly sad and catastrophic, but the anger against BP is a real disappointment to me. Sure they may be responsible for this particular disaster, but it's the spectre of drilling for oil miles into the earth in sensitive environments that is the real story here IMO. The technology to execute some of these endeavours is relatively new and far from well understood by politicians and industry watchdogs. I mean they've hired James Cameron for #$^# sake! Not that he isn't a cool dude who knows lots about submersible devices/vehicles, but a geological physicist he's not. To put it in a way I've not yet seen explained/discussed on TV, here we go. Consider the pressure we all feel when we dive 20 or more feet under water. Now let's talk about 1,500 metres!! This oil is gushing out at an enormous volume and speed, even under car flattening pressure!! The physics involved are beyond the comprehension of most folks, policy makers and regulators as well. I don't have a grasp of the math involved, but it's incredibly complex and can change as quickly as the gulf waters herself. All I can say is good luck to all the people involved in this work and hopefully some kind of relief is in sight soon.

Shawn.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

on the + side, all Louisiana seafood now comes pre-greased and ready for the BBQ!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The discussions regarding offshore oil in the Arctic, following this disaster have been interesting and enlightening for many. BP indicates that a second well to relieve pressure from the primary one could be completed in August....for a spill that started in April. While climate change in the Arctic has extended the number of days that the waterways are accessible, when people started to think about what might happen if such a blowout were to occur in the high Arctic in August, they realize they are absolutely and completely f***ed, since they wouldn't be able to send equipment below water, and couldn't get anyone or anything to the site other than by helicopter (so much for heavy equipment).

As much as it brings me no pleasure to say it, the misery that the northern Gulf Coast is presently experiencing (and will for some time) may just save the North by forcing a little deeper thought about the operational issues attached to addressing catastrophes. It is one thing to say "Well, it was terrible and avoidable, and it will be expensive to clean up", and quite another to say "That's it. We'll never be able to clean it up, and we'll never be able to get it back."


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Great points raised here. Unfortunately I think the thirst for oil, and current lack of viable alternatives, will trump environmental concerns.



mhammer said:


> The discussions regarding offshore oil in the Arctic, following this disaster have been interesting and enlightening for many. BP indicates that a second well to relieve pressure from the primary one could be completed in August....for a spill that started in April. While climate change in the Arctic has extended the number of days that the waterways are accessible, when people started to think about what might happen if such a blowout were to occur in the high Arctic in August, they realize they are absolutely and completely f***ed, since they wouldn't be able to send equipment below water, and couldn't get anyone or anything to the site other than by helicopter (so much for heavy equipment).
> 
> As much as it brings me no pleasure to say it, the misery that the northern Gulf Coast is presently experiencing (and will for some time) may just save the North by forcing a little deeper thought about the operational issues attached to addressing catastrophes. It is one thing to say "Well, it was terrible and avoidable, and it will be expensive to clean up", and quite another to say "That's it. We'll never be able to clean it up, and we'll never be able to get it back."


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...wouldn't it be great if this served as a wake-up call.

sorry, must have been dreaming...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Just because we can do something (like drill for oil and not control ourselves) doesn't mean we should. I wonder how many other rigs lack the safety equipment to prevent this from happening again...oh yeah, all of them. I'm not convinced that safety even came first for the environment.

I feel like we're going to war or something, that sick feeling in my gut, only it's worse. It's the end of life, livelihood, safety, and innocence for a lot of animals, people, communities, and eco-systems.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

it is nearly as big as Ireland


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...wouldn't it be great if this served as a wake-up call.
> 
> sorry, must have been dreaming...


Seeing that shot in the other thread of Lennon in bed with the slogan "War is over if you want it" reminded me of a time when I though my generation would one day have the power to change things. I was thirteen at the time. There was a Movement, man! What the Hell happened?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Just because we can do something (like drill for oil and not control ourselves) doesn't mean we should. I wonder how many other rigs lack the safety equipment to prevent this from happening again...oh yeah, all of them. I'm not convinced that safety even came first for the environment.
> 
> I feel like we're going to war or something, that sick feeling in my gut, only it's worse. It's the end of life, livelihood, safety, and innocence for a lot of animals, people, communities, and eco-systems.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Prior to the first space shuttle launch after the Columbia disaster, one of the astronauts was asked whether he felt any trepidation about going up on the shuttle. He replied that he was confident that THAT shuttle he was going on would likely be the safest damn thing in the sky.

In many respects he was right, and thinking correctly. There was wads and wads of professionalism at NASA applied to the Columbia, but all it took were some small errors to result in a terrible tragedy. The errors that resulted in the Deepwater Horizon accident may well have been equally small-but-cataclysmic in nature. Could they be foreseen....and corrected for....*now* and in future? I suspect so. But it is worth considering that every deep water oil rig has both things in common with others, and elements that are very different.

So, should we embark on any further oil-drilling in the ocean? Part of me says that companies have learned from this one, and will be a lot smarter the next time; particular since this is hitting BP in the pocket in ways that other companies do not wish to be hit. At the same time, will enough be learned to make any and all future rigs failsafe? Much less sure about that one, myself.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

it's all about corporate greed, and "managed risk"

sadly, it will someday be what we are remembered for, in the same way as the previous generation was remembered for their sacrifice in ww2


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

and likely in the same area of the world too, considering where the Gulf Stream currents bring the Gulf waters to.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Some viewing options on the under water work being done:

Watch BP Live Video Webcam Camera Feed of Gulf Oil Spill Here! (Update 12) | Alexander Higgins Blog


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

ive seen some people on this thread talk about lessons that could be learned by companies,and they make some points that sound sensible. but i think ultimately,isnt drilling for oil 5000 meters or whatever under the sea,in to this INCREDIBLE amount of pressure,the kind of thing that will NEVER be foolproof? and then you only need something to go wrong and you have what we have in the gulf of mexico.

the solution to me is obviously other sources of energy. i mean people will jump all over me saying the economy will grind to a hault. but if the whole pyramid scheme isnt torn down and people dont start to deal with the INCREDIBLY delicate balance we are destroying(not just this particular incident,but global warming,overpopulation,etc) then there wont BE an ecosystem for us to be a part of. and the fact that people have more pieces of paper that we allot a certain value to today because we allowed them to continue wont mean shite when were all gone.

i dont know,it just feels like its human nature to say" no but.....maybe we CAN have our cake,and eat it too" .if someone suggests we need to make big change,they are accused of being radical.just look at the way groups like greenpeace are portrayed in the media. and my point is,if we destroy the whole kitchen,then theres no more cake for anyone.so itll be a moot point.

or something like that,i really have no idea what im talking about 

Bobby


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Greed has always been a major motivating reason for doing anything. When you talk about the oil companies you are talking about greed heads in the highest order. These are companies that have profits in the billions each year and we are talking double digit billions. When you start to think that an extremely successful business that makes maybe 3-4 million per year is considered a fabulous success story they are dwarfed by these greed heads.

We have become slave to the black gold, it is the most powerful substance on earth. Think about the political power that it carries. Until we can shake its grip on the world, these things will continue to happen. All we can hope is that they can clean it up over time. Another sad fact is that this will end up costing BP well in excess of $5 billion dollars and they will still be financially sound. There is something wrong with that in my mind.



> BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.
> 
> On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.
> 
> During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

who really controls BP oil?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

This is what happens when companies hire the cheapest labour and dont maintain their equipment. Its a sign of things to come, as more and more people, companies, cities and countries try to do things for the cheapest possible...........


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> This is what happens when companies hire the cheapest labour and dont maintain their equipment. Its a sign of things to come, as more and more people, companies, cities and countries try to do things for the cheapest possible...........


If we are lucky and that is what happened.

I grew up in Niagara Falls Ontario, being right across from Niagara Falls New York I got to meet and know a lot of United States citizens and hear and know a lot of United States news. And just as local BC Television Broadcasting is not shown in Ontario (there is history to that statement), same kinds of regulatory rules work across the USA city to city and state to state. Being across the river we were able to get that 'local' level of news.

Back around 1990 or 95 there was a big rumbling out of New York. Literally, a rumbling, in the ground, of Earth quakes. Now, normally in our region from New York, NY around and up to Toronto (big stretch of land I know) we get around 200 to 500 quakes a year. We are on a deep set fault line and yes we get lots of little tremors. On occasion it is noticeable enough it makes the news. Now, what that rumbling was out of New York was a spike in the numbers of Earth quakes. Up from 200 to 500 all the way to 2500 to 3500 a year (approximately, been a lot of years since I read all this). The primary culprit for this sudden and massive climb in quakes was felt to be the new industrial waste disposal method of pumping hot waste water and waste gasses into the ground.

Oil drilling is a reversal of that process. Instead of pushing material in, it is sucking material out. In the Gulf now there is a vast number of companies and rigs sucking that oil out. Around the gulf there have also been two other major land events, one in Chile and the other in Haiti.

Nowhere has it been discussed, published, or shown what the seismic activity was on the gulf floor and area prior to the BOP numbers 1 and 2 (yes, they had 2 and both failed) went and popped. There are a fair number of discussions of a fairly massive methane bubble having shot up and been the cause of this incident but even that should have come with some fairly powerful geological pressure shifts. Call it an Earthly fart.

So yes, knowing from learned human experience that adding to or removing from geological strata pressure mechanisms can and does lead to geological shifting (Earth quakes) I will have to hope that this initial 'accident' was more human in cause than a reaction from the Earth because if it is a matter of Earth there is nothing humans can do to alter the outcomes and any well is doomed.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

It seems like the oil industry has completely failed to plan for this inevitability. Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't happened before now. It was just a matter of time. What surprises me is that they don't seem to have used basic predictive procedures. In the auto industry, and presumably in manufacturing engineering in general, we use methods such as PFMEA and DFMEA which predict any possible failure and put preventative measures in place as well as contingency plans, should such failure occur.

This was not an asteroid striking the rig or anything like that. It should be predictable that such an event would someday happen, but it seems like the almighty dollar took priority over this.

Wake up call? I sure hope so. The impact of this disaster goes well beyond money and jobs. We may not know the full impact for decades.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

It has happened before. The last one in the Gulf of Mexico took more than a year to stop............


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

It is a lot more complicatec than that. It was a series of mishaps, and the fire was ther capper. All that water pumped into the platform caused it to tip, and eventually sink, snapping off the mile long pipe. The immense pressure at that depth, combined with the pressure of the crude coming out of the well, and ,,,well we all know the rest.

CT.


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

Some poignant pictures in the Star today

From the Photo Desk


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Sometimes we do things for which our contingency plans don't cover, partly for financial reasons, partly because the problem exceeds our abilities. If every contingency could be covered then there would have been no Skylab, Chyrnobal, Love Canal, Katrina, Nashville, 3 Mile Island, World Trade Centre collapse, or Gulf oil leak. The scale is so huge - and so "out there" that any contingency plan cannot be fully tested, and as such remains a theory until put to the test. I remember when Skylab "fell". People everywhenere were asking that if we have the tecnology to put something in space then why don't we have the technology to stop it from falling - or at least divert it or blow it up. Well it fell. Luckily it didn't fall on me. Did we learn anything from it though for the next time? Or did enough time pass for it to just fall off the human radar? Will that happen with BP? Are we willing to pay the cost for proper contingencies - are we prepared to say no to fueling our cars? Or will we forget? .....................


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'm starting to realize that feeling guilty about our need for energy and feeling guilty about where we get that energy are two different things altogether.

we need energy, so feeling guilty about needing it pehaps makes no sense.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i'm starting to realize that feeling guilty about our need for energy and feeling guilty about where we get that energy are two different things altogether.
> 
> we need energy, so feeling guilty about needing it pehaps makes no sense.


how much energy do we actually need though?
it would make sense for one to feel guilty about using energy foolishly.
i know a guy who heats his swimming pool.
in the summer.
because his wife wont go in it unless it is bathtub warm.
he can justify this by paying his hydro bill, and have no guilt whatsoever.
now take that manner of justification and apply it to a whole city, or a whole country-
and all its factories and roadways, and, well, everything else.
humans are the only wasteful species on the planet, and we excel at it,
and there is a whole sense of entitlement that we share.
maybe you dont, maybe i dont, but humankind as a whole certainly does.
if we werent so wasteful, then it would be less profitable for companies to do stupid things like this.
there is a possibility that the sea floor will collapse into the oil reservoir lol- now that theres less oil in there providing a cushion.
guess what happens then?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

LOL fraser... just like the cartoon eh! Sitting in the tree, sawing through below you.


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

What better way to convince people that fossil fuels are bad. Imagine a company so greedy that they never make a plan to appropriately react in case of this type of emergency were to ever occur. Yeah right. Seems a bit hokey to me. Are we really that stupid (humanity) that we could never have anticipated this? Come on now. It's only going to be a matter of time until science, greed, finance, etc.. causes yet another rapidly advancing disaster. What is it going to take to wake people up? Hopefully not too much more.

I saw Obama on CNN a few hours ago saying that BP have signed a 50 million dollar advertising contract to improve their image since this event began. He also said that BP will be paying massive dividends this year to their share holders out of legal obligation and yet they appear to be "nickel and diming" the people and businesses affected by this with minimal support. Obama may be able to lay it hard to BP now but how are they going to ultimately fix the mess? 

There was a fire at one of the refineries last year and the price of gas was way up in a matter of a few days. How come they aren't jacking the prices right now? Think about it. You know why.


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

prodigal_son said:


> What better way to convince people that fossil fuels are bad. Imagine a company so greedy that they never make a plan to appropriately react in case of this type of emergency were to ever occur. Yeah right. Seems a bit hokey to me. Are we really that stupid (humanity) that we could never have anticipated this? Come on now. It's only going to be a matter of time until science, greed, finance, etc.. causes yet another rapidly advancing disaster. What is it going to take to wake people up? Hopefully not too much more.
> 
> I saw Obama on CNN a few hours ago saying that BP have signed a 50 million dollar advertising contract to improve their image since this event began. He also said that BP will be paying massive dividends this year to their share holders out of legal obligation and yet they appear to be "nickel and diming" the people and businesses affected by this with minimal support. Obama may be able to lay it hard to BP now but how are they going to ultimately fix the mess?
> 
> There was a fire at one of the refineries last year and the price of gas was way up in a matter of a few days. How come they aren't jacking the prices right now? Think about it. You know why.


The reason they aren't jacking the price is because they don't want to hurt the economic 'recovery'. Also, demand is low because of the recession and there is a temporary oil glut right now. But that won't last for long because any upswing in the economy will create an upswing in demand which will slam against the production ceiling. This is our future. An increase in demand will not only increase the price of oil, it will also exceed supply, and economic growth is dependent upon _increased_ energy production. Full out production can now barely keep it flat. 

Oil production figures have been more or less flat since 2005 and have decreased by about one million bpd over the last three years. We are at the peak, and all these small wells they want to drill will not be able to replace the production lost from Mexico, the North Sea, and now it looks like the Saudis have peaked as well. Saudi Arabia used to be the 'swing' producer who adjusted production up and down with demand to keep the price stable. Now they will be going full tilt with falling figures every year.

I don't think the fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico will have any effect on the _demand_ for oil, and it is 'we', not 'they', who demand it. If we don't want to see anymore offshore drilling or tarsand destruction we all have to sacrifice our energy usage, and the biggest use of oil by far is gasoline. But how many people do you know who are willing to give up driving? Right now, we have a choice, but that choice will eventually disappear. So, my prediction is that 'we', not 'they', will go after every drop of oil possible regardless of the environmental consequences because 'we' don't want to sacrifice any modern conveniences we now enjoy, even though it is inevitable they will disappear in the near, very near, future.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

This is THE environmental disaster that will be the tipping point of our destruction of this planet. I am angered beyond expression. BP executives still get paid millions in salary and bonuses and they want to pay dividends to shareholders like nothing has happened. Despite all of our attempts to downplay the environmental disasters that oil has played a part in around the world we need to radically change what and how we do things. No more jumping into the pickup to drive to the fridge for a beer.
BP needs to be MADE to pay for everything no matter the cost - even up to and including bankruptcy. BP executives and staff who thought that the risk management of "mostly work", which does not work at all rather than must or will work in the event of catastrophe should forfeit all pay and benefits for the reat of their lives. Playing that sort of game with the world that gives us food, shelter and air to breath is deliberately delinquent while they and their company still make money. People who risk and lose like that need to pay such a steep price that no one will ever consider doing such a thing ever again. 
Yes it will alter how we live but it is very necessary. Up to now I thought that the death penalty was out moded, but those who play so fast and loose with the earth, it resources and our, humanity's and all of the other creatures who inhabit the earth, survival maybe they should pay the ultimate price. The betrayal is complete and those involved morally bankrupt. Greed for the sake of profit is proving to be the ultimate cost for us who live on this planet.

B


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

Lester B. Flat said:


> RE: "..it is 'we', not 'they', who demand it."


With all due respect.. No man. It is not "we". It IS "they". I will not sit here and think that because I supposedly choose to buy petroleum based products that I am a part of the problem. We are completely immersed/trapped in it. It is a quagmire that is nearly impossible to escape. They have been shoving oil down our throats for years and you know it. The decision to use oil as mankind's primary fuel was made many decades ago and you and I were born into an oil consuming world that we cannot escape. You may think this is a narcissistic way of looking at it but when I think about socio-economic polarity and "the other 5% of the population" concept, you are not able to substantially tell me that I am one of the people who made this happen. 

Honestly, how does one escape an oil consuming life and still maintain the life one lives currently? If you had the technology to solve this dilema, would you share it? Imagine an exponentially expansive population growth like never before resulting from a new technology that solves the world's energy problems. It's cheap, it's abundant, it's clean etc.. You think there's too many people here now? It could be alot worse.


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

prodigal_son said:


> With all due respect.. No man. It is not "we". It IS "they". I will not sit here and think that because I supposedly choose to buy petroleum based products that I am a part of the problem. We are completely immersed/trapped in it. It is a quagmire that is nearly impossible to escape. They have been shoving oil down our throats for years and you know it. The decision to use oil as mankind's primary fuel was made many decades ago and you and I were born into an oil consuming world that we cannot escape. You may think this is a narcissistic way of looking at it but when I think about socio-economic polarity and "the other 5% of the population" concept, you are not able to substantially tell me that I am one of the people who made this happen.
> 
> Honestly, how does one escape an oil consuming life and still maintain the life one lives currently? If you had the technology to solve this dilema, would you share it? Imagine an exponentially expansive population growth like never before resulting from a new technology that solves the world's energy problems. It's cheap, it's abundant, it's clean etc.. You think there's too many people here now? It could be alot worse.


First, I wasn't singling you out, just responding to some points you made in your post, which I happen to agree with. Sorry if it looked that way.

No, I don't believe either you or I are to blame for the fact we are addicted to oil but, I do believe we all share responsibility and, even if unwittingly, are part of the problem. Blame and responsibility are not the same thing. I mean, the upper 5% are not consuming 84 million barrels a day all by themselves. 'We' are 'their' enablers and 'they' are just 'we' with more money and power. Remember, 'they' were born into the same oil addicted world as you and I, although I'm not saying there aren't villains among us.

_Honestly, how does one escape an oil consuming life and still maintain the life one lives currently?_ Well, you can't... and that is one of my points. The lives we live currently are unsustainable, even with alternative energy, because nothing packs the power of a barrel of oil. No other energy source is as transportable or versatile. Oil is all around you and you may even be wearing it. A better question would be - How does one escape an oil consuming life and still maintain life? We have to answer that one as soon as possible. 

If I had the technology to solve this dilemma I would most certainly share it, but I don't, and neither does anyone else unfortunately.

Of course, 'they' will think of something. 

By the way, I took the first step and quit driving 8 years ago. Bad habits can be broken. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

Welp. I live in the country and have a large sized family. IM-freakin'-possible, dude. 

I know that there are people out there that think people like me are the main contributers to this problem. Probably am. I have met and spoke with them numerous times. Large family, does nothing to reduce the footprint, massive consumer, etc.. There are some pretty negative rotten people out there that seem to have alot of blind faith in nothing but negativity and gloominess. If only they could channel their focus onto something constructive.

Humans have to come to grips with the fact that (for now) we are stuck here on Earth and need to do everything we can to stay within the operating capacity of the planet. It's hard for alot of people to grasp this concept. A major paradigm shift is imminent. I would not want to be a world leader in these times.


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

problem is,the earth really doesnt give a s___ whether we feel we need to drive,or take airplanes, or not. or whether we feel we have to clear vast amounts of forest to raise more cattle. whether we need to overfish, or whether we need to have more energy to power more things we need,with all the pollution that comes along after it.

just as an aside,im not aiming this post at any particular person,just thinking out loud here,but i do hear/read a lot of this attitude which im decrying(sp?) here.

i mean were here saying "man needs this,man needs that". when man hasnt needed those things for dozens of dozens of thousands of years,we are talking about a speck of time since the industrial revolution,in the grand scheme of things.and the VAST majority of other living creatures on the planet sure as hell dont need those things either. 

so when weve decided man needs more then the earth can provide,itll all collapse. i dont pretend to have any idea when that will be,but its not thousands of years off in the distant future,that seems obvious. it seems more like a next few generations kind of thing.

i mean,were due for a reversal of poles arent we? it could be tommorow,it could be in 100.......1000 years,days, hours. in the grand scheme of things,its nothing. once that shifts,itll shift. its not going to ask our opinion. i dont see it as depressing,its just that we think we are alot more important then we are.

so if we continue to deplete ressources and the earth in a plainly abusive way,at some point the earth will say" thats enough" and thatll be that. and the earth wont give a damn. we just wont exist anymore,end of story.

on the up side,lady gaga,justin bieber,charlie sheen,howard stern,rap "stars",entertainement-"news" television and all these frigging fake musicians,and just people and things who get on my nerves wont exist anymore either at that point.

gots to stay positive.

now watch this drive.

Bobby


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So is it a bad sign that a private company can be forced by a goverment to cough up 20 billion dollars to be dished out as someone else see's fit? Clearly BP has a responsibilty to do the right thing and I am sure they realize that there is no other alternative but to do just that, but having to put up 20 bill and have a goverment appointed cheque writer handing it out seems fishy to me.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So is it a bad sign that a private company can be forced by a goverment to cough up 20 billion dollars to be dished out as someone else see's fit? Clearly BP has a responsibilty to do the right thing and I am sure they realize that there is no other alternative but to do just that, but having to put up 20 bill and have a goverment appointed cheque writer handing it out seems fishy to me.


this is because, even now, there are people looking to get rich off this. and they will


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

prodigal_son said:


> Welp. I live in the country and have a large sized family. IM-freakin'-possible, dude.
> 
> I know that there are people out there that think people like me are the main contributers to this problem. Probably am. I have met and spoke with them numerous times. Large family, does nothing to reduce the footprint, massive consumer, etc.. There are some pretty negative rotten people out there that seem to have alot of blind faith in nothing but negativity and gloominess. If only they could channel their focus onto something constructive.
> 
> Humans have to come to grips with the fact that (for now) we are stuck here on Earth and need to do everything we can to stay within the operating capacity of the planet. It's hard for alot of people to grasp this concept. A major paradigm shift is imminent. I would not want to be a world leader in these times.


i lived in the country most of my life.
when i decided to quit driving, i simply moved to the city so i can ride the bus to work. i hate the city, i love the country.
but in the country id be unemployed. simple.
YOU are the reason YOU are addicted to oil.
and its YOU and others like you that feeds the beast.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It's like one of the earlier posters said, "we are trapped in it". It's not just the petrol for our cars and gas/oil for our homes, but electricity, plastics, medicine, food delivery and on and on. Then there's the politics behind it and let's not get started on that.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Oil has been stopped !! Thank goodness for that. Hopefully nothing goes wrong now.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/07/15/14724776.html


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> Oil has been stopped !! Thank goodness for that. Hopefully nothing goes wrong now.


like this?

Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a world-killing event - by Terrence Aym - Helium


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

fraser said:


> like this?
> 
> Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a world-killing event - by Terrence Aym - Helium


Well that would solve all the "save the planet" problems I guess. Like I said before. Nature has its way of taking care of things.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Well that would solve all the "save the planet" problems I guess. Like I said before. Nature has its way of taking care of things.


indeed gc- for the sake of the planet i hope she gets rid of us humans quickly and efficiently.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

fraser said:


> like this?
> 
> Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a world-killing event - by Terrence Aym - Helium


Hmmmm..........maybe they were drilling there to relieve building pressure of this methane bubble in the first place? Maybe they know that life on this planet is doomed and are trying to prevent it?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Ah but

There is no money to be made in PREVENTING disaster.

Peoples houses don't get burnt in a fire, no contractors make money rebuilding so cities in burn zones go about their blissful ways of not making sure houses can withstand the fires (this happened about 2 years ago in the US, the state decision was that houses can be built to withstand the fires, but the added 50 to 100 thousand dollar cost was unacceptable. Of course, having to build from ashes costs 300 and up every few years ...).

The same can be shown and said of many different deals around the world. Start scratching at the paint and you will find people live off the continual state of disaster they are in more comfortably than they would if you removed that state of disaster from them.

When Chernobyl went UP it spread a radiation cloud that did circumnavigate the globe, and did so fairly quickly too. If the Gulf of Mexico was formed by 1 methane bubble popping YET life survived, I would have to figure the mechanics of that would have been the same as for Chernobyl, 'weather' and 'severity VS distance from source'. Ok, the scale would be billions of times bigger the impact many times more severe, however there would be hope


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

prodigal_son said:


> With all due respect.. No man. It is not "we". It IS "they". I will not sit here and think that because I supposedly choose to buy petroleum based products that I am a part of the problem. We are completely immersed/trapped in it. It is a quagmire that is nearly impossible to escape. They have been shoving oil down our throats for years and you know it. The decision to use oil as mankind's primary fuel was made many decades ago and you and I were born into an oil consuming world that we cannot escape. You may think this is a narcissistic way of looking at it but when I think about socio-economic polarity and "the other 5% of the population" concept, you are not able to substantially tell me that I am one of the people who made this happen.
> 
> Honestly, how does one escape an oil consuming life and still maintain the life one lives currently? If you had the technology to solve this dilema, would you share it? Imagine an exponentially expansive population growth like never before resulting from a new technology that solves the world's energy problems. It's cheap, it's abundant, it's clean etc.. You think there's too many people here now? It could be alot worse.


There is technology available though.. Watch the movie Who Killed the Electric Car. Parks Canada had in their posession these great little electric cars. They went top speed 40k which was perfect since the speed limit in Ontario parks is 40K. The park wardens loved them as they were very quiet, didn't spook the wildlife, they could "sneek" up on people doing bad things and were extremely low maintenence. Win Win situation right? NO! Transport Canada sent them a cease and desist notice that they could not use these cars as they couldn't travel fast enough for Canadian roads. Did I mention the speed limit in Ontario Parks is 40k? They had to get rid of those neat little cars. I saw this on a program called Things That Move on Discovery. It's nothing short of outrageous. The parts business (not to mention oil and gas) is just too lucrative.

But hey I'm a hypocrite, I drive a Cramavan and commute to work!


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

And after causing probably one of the worst disasters in the world and only spending 4 Billion $'s, they can now claim a 10Billion $ loss as a Tax Deduction there just isn't enough KY jelly in the world for me to understand that one.ship.................................and leys facce it we keep getting screwed over at ever turn can someone explain to me why fuel cell cars have not gone down in price after al of these years you'd think by now they would try to sell more to get you out of the oil produced cars and into something that doesn't require us to keep searching for new oil ( Like on our coast waters here, the provincial gov. had been trying to have exploritory wells drilled for the last 10 years or so and have been looking at pipelines down our coastal shores, and don't worry we'll make sure nothing ever happens, says Gordon Campbell , yeah righ how many times have we heard that one ).


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

>_>

HST take on a fuel cell is far lower than on oil...


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> There is technology available though.. Watch the movie Who Killed the Electric Car. Parks Canada had in their posession these great little electric cars. They went top speed 40k which was perfect since the speed limit in Ontario parks is 40K. The park wardens loved them as they were very quiet, didn't spook the wildlife, they could "sneek" up on people doing bad things and were extremely low maintenence. Win Win situation right? NO! Transport Canada sent them a cease and desist notice that they could not use these cars as they couldn't travel fast enough for Canadian roads. Did I mention the speed limit in Ontario Parks is 40k? They had to get rid of those neat little cars. I saw this on a program called Things That Move on Discovery. It's nothing short of outrageous. The parts business (not to mention oil and gas) is just too lucrative.
> 
> But hey I'm a hypocrite, I drive a Cramavan and commute to work!


I am with prdigal_son on this one, I am not buying the notion that we, as consumers, are all part of the problem. The system is in place because very powerful people want it that way. There are much better, cheaper, and clean energy solutions out there and they have been around for decades. Has no one ever heard of Nicola Tesla? The electric car is not even close to being the best of the solutions that are systematically suppressed. [video=youtube;6Rb_rDkwGnU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU[/video]

and that is just one of the several out there that we don't hear about. ask yourself why?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

This is not exactly news to the informed public. It is about money and power and that is what is has always been about. They need to sustain the income and keep it coming in. I dont know of many businesses that would actively pursue an alternative to their product that would put them out of business or at the very least, substantially lower their income. These people live for today and maybe tomorrow and at best for their lifetimes. They are not concerned about what happens when they are dead.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

And you know I don't begrudge someone to make a buck, but when you are entitled to one buck you shouldn't be allowed to screw others over for the 100 bucks that they make. And really what incentive is there for them to ever stop this. It has to make you scratch your head though when you stop and think really there are but a hand full of folks who really run the world and our politicians are nothing more then their puppets who they have strings attached to and they make them dance at their beck and call. Looks like we ahve some really talented puppet players in this world.Ship


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yup

No corporation should be allowed to ever grow bigger than a set size. Maybe 500million a year in earnings. If that. Forced divorces is the only way you will see corporate responsibility begin to develop.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keeperofthegood said:


> Yup
> 
> No corporation should be allowed to ever grow bigger than a set size. Maybe 500million a year in earnings. If that. Forced divorces is the only way you will see corporate responsibility begin to develop.


Shit, you have some executives making that much a year at some of these companies. Your average bloke in this world cannot comprehend the amount of money that is changing hands behind some of these closed doors. It's astronomical and frightening. BP will go through most likely 6 billion plus on this mess and survive nicely. There is no other business on earth that could do it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Shit, you have some executives making that much a year at some of these companies. Your average bloke in this world cannot comprehend the amount of money that is changing hands behind some of these closed doors. It's astronomical and frightening. BP will go through most likely 6 billion plus on this mess and survive nicely. There is no other business on earth that could do it.



I KNOW It is sickening to me too!!

I remember the 1970's if you were a writer all the hoops you had to hop through to get published and in the end YOU DID.

Then in the 1980's there was THE MERGERS and now, there are only 3 main publishers for all North America. There are hundreds of names yes, but there is only three companies left. Same with HOW deeply owned so much of our daily food is by KRAFT. Way way way too big. All that does is kill off competition and make situations not a lot different than monopolies. If you are a business in Toronto and you can do 500mil in a year in Toronto, don't go buying out all the surrounding businesses up, it only drops quality and raises prices and then they say "that location is not profitable" and they close up but by then "that location" has lost so much money no one can come along and reopen to fill the void left when 5 years before EVERYONE was doing a LOT better.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> I The electric car is not even close to being the best of the solutions that are systematically suppressed. [video=youtube;6Rb_rDkwGnU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU[/video]
> 
> and that is just one of the several out there that we don't hear about. ask yourself why?


Because they don't have the parts that regular cars do. Therefore the auto industry can't make money off replacement parts and service. At the time everyone thought Nicola Tesla was crazy..Then he got ripped off by Marconi.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> Because they don't have the parts that regular cars do. Therefore the auto industry can't make money off replacement parts and service. At the time everyone thought Nicola Tesla was crazy..Then he got ripped off by Marconi.


Tesla got shafted by a lot of people  the bank manager that was his "funding source" was also funding his competition and for big payouts from that competition Teslas bank drove him into poverty.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> Yup
> 
> No corporation should be allowed to ever grow bigger than a set size. Maybe 500million a year in earnings. If that. Forced divorces is the only way you will see corporate responsibility begin to develop.


indeed, the world has been going in the other direction for a long time, there are a handful of corps that own everything...


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> indeed, the world has been going in the other direction for a long time, there are a handful of corps that own everything...


This is why I'll never understand the new conservative movement. I believe in competition, the free market, and smaller government, but these Bush-leaguers talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Their governing style consistently feeds bureaucracy, deminishes competition, and when the markets tank they come calling on the taxpayers to bail them out. I was under the impression that if your business isn't viable or was/is horribly managed, then tough shit. That's how it went for everyone I know that had their business fail. There seems to be an infinite amount of cash for security, the military, drug wars, building jails, bail outs, elitist galas, but not to muckin' fuch for education, healthcare, the ecology, arts and culture. How can these pukes say they're thinking of our future? Rant over.

Shawn.


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

Rugburn said:


> This is why I'll never understand the new conservative movement. I believe in competition, the free market, and smaller government, but these Bush-leaguers talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Their governing style consistently feeds bureaucracy, deminishes competition, and when the markets tank they come calling on the taxpayers to bail them out. I was under the impression that if your business isn't viable or was/is horribly managed, then tough shit. That's how it went for everyone I know that had their business fail. There seems to be an infinite amount of cash for security, the military, drug wars, building jails, bail outs, elitist galas, but not to muckin' fuch for education, healthcare, the ecology, arts and culture. How can these pukes say they're thinking of our future? Rant over.
> 
> Shawn.


two things.

theres the whole "wanting your cake,and eating it too" syndrome with some people. i mean some folk want smaller govt.,lower taxes,as "laissez faire" a market as possible,but they also want services. you cant have it both ways. you cant have a libertarian style governance with socialist style benefits. you have to choose one or the other,right? that should be obvious,but it isnt to some people.

i think the larger answer to your question(on the growing conservative movements) though,is simply that governments lie. i mean,thats not shocking to anyone,of course.

i consider myself a socialist. but i respect that the majority of people who want a more right wing approach genuinely do. i mean who am i to judge what they want,they are entitled to their own point of view which is as valid as mine. i think its not a good way to go,but its their choice.

but the answer lies in that the elite know who their base is. so if your a politician and your possible constituency says they want less govt,lower taxes,a freer market.....well,what are you going to promise them? less govt,lower taxes,and a free market. i mean,since when did what a political elite,whether left,right,or centrist, say necessarily equate to what they do? 

so you have the old Goebles approach. repeat something enough and people will start to think its true,its just human nature to some extent. i mean....many people in the u.s. still think there were links between al-qaeda and saddam hussein. are they aware that the only part of iraq which ever harboured any fudamentalist islamist groups were in the north,that the north of iraq has been under u.s. control since the end of the first gulf war? are they aware that one of islamists main enemies ARE secular leaders put in power by the west like hussein was? 

are they stupid? of course not. but theyve been told so many times that these people were the enemy,and that they are coming to destroy them,that they wind up believing it.you cant go on tv and say were going to engage in an imperialist war to achieve strategic millitary/energy goals. that we are going to sacrifice human lives for a lust for power or money. people wont buy into that. Hitler didnt say that. Stalin never said anything like that,neither did Netenyahu,Sharon,Reagan, Kennedy,either Bush,etc etc etc.... Martin,then Harper didnt say we should be in afghanistan to protect pipelines and strategic positions for the west. it wouldnt work.

its just an example,you could apply it to anything of course. but if i were running for the conservative party,and wanted to get,or keep my job/power,id make it a point to repeat as much as possible that we are going to lower taxes,brutalise criminals,loosen laws and tax restraints for hard working law abiding citizens. doesnt mean thats what i,or my party is going to do,or even wants to do.

Bobby


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Bobby said:


> two things.
> 
> theres the whole "wanting your cake,and eating it too" syndrome with some people. i mean some folk want smaller govt.,*lower taxes*,as "laissez faire" a market as possible,but they also want services. you cant have it both ways. you cant have a libertarian style governance with socialist style benefits. you have to choose one or the other,right? that should be obvious,but it isnt to some people.
> 
> ...


Where did I say anything about less taxes. When I say smaller less intrusive government, I'm referring to the "Nanny State". I don't personally think it's the government's business to be policing non-violent consential behaviour among adults. I do believe competition leads to a better product and a better value for the customer. I also believe the market value of a given company ought to be judged and reflective of it's sterngth with consumers and profitability for the ownership. That's a long way from a market without checks and ballances. Where mis-management is rewarded with huge salaries and bonuses. Anytime funding for better education, healthcare, foreign aid, and the arts is tabled by a more centrist political force, these guys go apeshit. Yet when private banks tank due to greedy, crooked book-keeping tricks, they come crying us a river. As far as I'm concerned what the global bankers are doing, have been doing, is akin to an old fashioned hold-up. "Put your hands in the air and hand over the money" is essentially what they pulled on the world's big governments. Lastly, your right, people are entitled to believe what they want. 

Shawn


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

that wasnt my point,Shawn.i didnt mean to put words in your mouth or address specifically what you believe the govt should or should not do. regardless of what you,i or anyone else believes exactly,the people who want power will promise what they(the electorate) say they want. thats why i used a strong example like war,to show dissconnect between what the govt says,and whats really going on.

as i said,i wasnt trying to address what you believe specifically,because i believe this kind of deception is practiced no matter how far right,left,or center the government in power is.

if your base is the right,in general people are going to want,as you put it,less of a "nanny state". so the govt will promise that,and as i mentionned earlier,repeat it enough so that people begin to believe it.it doesnt mean thats at all what they are going to do.

a lot of what your saying,is based on the assumption that the govt wants whats best for its population,but is simply making bad decisions,or at least thats how im reading it. i think in many cases its clear this just isnt the case. but noone is going to go on t.v. and say "well,what happened with BP,or Goldman Sachs,or whoever is awful,but they make alot of money off you guys, and alot of backroom deals go on with us,so its in our best interest to screw you over in favour of them". its a ridiculous example,but you know what i mean. people would go nuts,or course rightly so.

in the end,i was just addressing your point of saying that you didnt get the growing conservative movement,when what the govt is doing is not consistent with that in many ways. the answer to me is simple. this is what people want,so thats what their going to promise.and they will repeat those statements ad nauseum,until the people believe them. as i stated before,it doesnt mean thats what their going to do,or ever had any intention of doing.

Bobby


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Bobby said:


> that wasnt my point,Shawn.i didnt mean to put words in your mouth or address specifically what you believe the govt should or should not do. regardless of what you,i or anyone else believes exactly,the people who want power will promise what they(the electorate) say they want. thats why i used a strong example like war,to show dissconnect between what the govt says,and whats really going on.
> 
> as i said,i wasnt trying to address what you believe specifically,because i believe this kind of deception is practiced no matter how far right,left,or center the government in power is.
> 
> ...


the good news is, i hope, that people are starting to wake up and not believe governments (politicians) and the main stream media in general anymore, and with good reason. even the left/right, conservative/liberal, democrat/republican paradigm is falling off quickly because it is clear that they all work for the same people, and it ain't us. I read a poll recently that claimed that 84% of Americans surveyed do not believe the official story of 911. 

but now, as fun as it is, I think we may be digressing into a restricted area of political discussion...


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Bobby said:


> that wasnt my point,Shawn.i didnt mean to put words in your mouth or address specifically what you believe the govt should or should not do. regardless of what you,i or anyone else believes exactly,the people who want power will promise what they(the electorate) say they want. thats why i used a strong example like war,to show dissconnect between what the govt says,and whats really going on.
> 
> as i said,i wasnt trying to address what you believe specifically,because i believe this kind of deception is practiced no matter how far right,left,or center the government in power is.
> 
> ...


Bobby, I get the impression you think I live under a rock. Politicians lying is nothing new. Politicians making promises they can't keep is nothing new. A global shift towards neo-conservative economic models is fairly new in my read on the status quo. Any politician worth his salt knows he can't please everyone.......that's life. Interestingly, I would say lying and subterfuge are actually used less, and likely less effective today than in the past. While polite terms like "age of austerity" are favoured, over "the little guy must foot the bill", it is what it is. Lastly, I don't believe all governments in the West are similarly decietful or given strictly to corporate/market interests. There's a veritable rainbow of governance standards/models out there. Some provide greater democratic expression, some less, while others don't offer any at all. "Same shit different pile" makes for a funny T-shirt, but isn't an accurate reflection of global politics. 

Shawn.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

ne1roc said:


> Hmmmm..........maybe they were drilling there to relieve building pressure of this methane bubble in the first place? Maybe they know that life on this planet is doomed and are trying to prevent it?


i doubt that.
its pretty obvious why they were drilling there.
as for the methane bubble, i dont think releasing it into the atmosphere would be a good move lol.
thats something best left under the sea floor, but then so is the oil.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i have a methane bubble that needs relieving sometimes. i just "let it go" and hope for the best


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

Rugburn said:


> Bobby, I get the impression you think I live under a rock. Politicians lying is nothing new. Politicians making promises they can't keep is nothing new. A global shift towards neo-conservative economic models is fairly new in my read on the status quo. Any politician worth his salt knows he can't please everyone.......that's life. Interestingly, I would say lying and subterfuge are actually used less, and likely less effective today than in the past. While polite terms like "age of austerity" are favoured, over "the little guy must foot the bill", it is what it is. Lastly, I don't believe all governments in the West are similarly decietful or given strictly to corporate/market interests. There's a veritable rainbow of governance standards/models out there. Some provide greater democratic expression, some less, while others don't offer any at all. "Same shit different pile" makes for a funny T-shirt, but isn't an accurate reflection of global politics.
> 
> Shawn.


im just making conversation here,i wasnt trying to insult you,quit being so sensitive,for chrissake.

i was giving my opinion on why it is that conservatives believe their govt,or potential govt will give them what they want,when that obviously isnt whats happening. of course politicians lying isnt new,that why i said that much in my first post.

point me to a western government which isnt very clearly driven by market interests outside of south america. subterfuge isnt as obvious,because its become so internalised.there certainly isnt any less of it. how many afghan civillians died last year? but im sure there are many tim horton's in afghanistan as a result. orwell couldnt have made this shit up.

im not sure where your seeing this "rainbow". democratic expression is not something thats doled out by benevolant leaders,its taken by people. of course countries have differing amounts of said expression,given different histories,and internal politics.

chavez.morales,castro to some extent lula and other politicians who dare to stray from NORTH(yes,im including canada's own interests,are labeled as renegades for having the gaul to nationalise their own institutions and/or move towards more socialist ideas. meanwhile right and center right governments in N.A and the EU are fighting wars,killing and terrorizing people in the arab and larger muslim world to protect said interests.

some rainbow.

Bobby


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Just be careful: a "shart" is an obvious danger in such occasions. I'm sure Homeland Security outlawed that kind of activity!



cheezyridr said:


> i have a methane bubble that needs relieving sometimes. i just "let it go" and hope for the best


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Does beg the question though ...


How many cow farts does it take to ...


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Bobby said:


> im just making conversation here,i wasnt trying to insult you,quit being so sensitive,for chrissake.
> Bobby


Bobby I generally avoid shit like this, but frankly, you're not "just making conversation". You've quoted what I've posted and proceeded to explain to me where I'm wrong. It is your opinion, but it's also a decidedly argumentative opinion. That doesn't bother or insult me at all. What gets me is your insistance that your's is the "correct" opinion.

Cheers, Shawn.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Bobby said:


> im just making conversation here,i wasnt trying to insult you,quit being so sensitive,for chrissake.
> 
> i was giving my opinion on why it is that conservatives believe their govt,or potential govt will give them what they want,when that obviously isnt whats happening. of course politicians lying isnt new,that why i said that much in my first post.
> 
> ...


I am not buying the democratic style of rainbow story either, or that some styles of governemnt are better or even fundamentally different than any other in the long run. Study history and you will see that theyt all lead to the same place, the few controlling the many. Someone once said democracy is like having 3 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for lunch. It is tyranny and mod rules made to look civilized and just. I am not buying into the left/right, socialist/conservative paradigm either. I think it is time to consider the radical notion that we don't need to be 'governed', period. "govern' from the greek root, to steer or control, 'ment' from the root word 'mente' or mind. End Rant.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> I am not buying the democratic style of rainbow story either, or that some styles of governemnt are better or even fundamentally different than any other in the long run. Study history and you will see that theyt all lead to the same place, the few controlling the many. Someone once said democracy is like having 3 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for lunch. It is tyranny and mod rules made to look civilized and just. I am not buying into the left/right, socialist/conservative paradigm either. * I think it is time to consider the radical notion that we don't need to be 'governed', period. * "govern' from the greek root, to steer or control, 'ment' from the root word 'mente' or mind. End Rant.


LOL Anarchy? Well, to each their own. I'm inclined to believe that there are people more quallified to lead or "steer" than others. Whether it's military, business, or even a music group there will always be someone best suited to manage affairs. Of course the perennial issue is that those in charge are not always best suited to the task. That's why I prefer a system of governance that allows them to be removed. In my opinion the notion of anarchy as a framework for society to function within is laughable. Does this philosophy extend to the police, military, business world, community initiatives, environmental concerns? Speaking of reading one's history, consider the economic reforms that took place after the Great Depression and after WW2. Many of these were reversed in the last 15 years by greedy "Reaganomicists" in both parties and by Wall Steet's non-stop lobbying. I would go so far as to say this was "economic anarchy". Ignoring the rules, making things up as you go along, and lying about it to any over-seeing body. I have both liberal and conservative values depending on the issue. However, neoconservatism is often misunderstood as conservatism. They're not the same thing. When Eisenhower gave his famous final address, he warned of an "idustrial/military complex". He was a Republican, an army general, and he knew the threat of abuse was lurking. I think if the politician is commited to to leadership and representation of his country---a statesman, than it really doesn't matter the pollitical orientation. If he leads by his own ideology and that of his flock alone, we have a break in representation. That's not the faullt of democracy, it's the human nature of some.

Great Depression and the Economic Reforms that Followed - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Shawn.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> LOL Anarchy? Well, to each their own. I'm inclined to believe that there are people more quallified to lead or "steer" than others. Whether it's military, business, or even a music group there will always be someone best suited to manage affairs. Of course the perennial issue is that those in charge are not always best suited to the task. That's why I prefer a system of governance that allows them to be removed. In my opinion the notion of anarchy as a framework for society to function within is laughable. Does this philosophy extend to the police, military, business world, community initiatives, environmental concerns? Speaking of reading one's history, consider the economic reforms that took place after the Great Depression and after WW2. Many of these were reversed in the last 15 years by greedy "Reaganomicists" in both parties and by Wall Steet's non-stop lobbying. I would go so far as to say this was "economic anarchy". Ignoring the rules, making things up as you go along, and lying about it to any over-seeing body. I have both liberal and conservative values depending on the issue. However, neoconservatism is often misunderstood as conservatism. They're not the same thing. When Eisenhower gave his famous final address, he warned of an "idustrial/military complex". He was a Republican, an army general, and he knew the threat of abuse was lurking. I think if the politician is commited to to leadership and representation of his country---a statesman, than it really doesn't matter the pollitical orientation. If he leads by his own ideology and that of his flock alone, we have a break in representation. That's not the faullt of democracy, it's the human nature of some.
> 
> Great Depression and the Economic Reforms that Followed - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
> 
> Shawn.


What is laughable to me is the idea that any 'democratic' system (majority rules) with a leader that is not responsible or accountable will be fair and equitable. What about a 'republic', for lack of a better word. Instead of the majority rules style of governance (democracy) we would have a community where all stand behind the rights of the one and the 'government' would have the job of seeing that those rights are honored. Most nations have bill of rights and constitutions, and the UN has one if you're stuck, so no need to make it all up, and there are precedents in history of this kind of society, though few and far between. 

The key word in your statement for me Shawn, is 'management' rather than 'govern' or control - "someone best suited to manage affairs" as you say. Of course, anyone would agree that some are better suited to lead and manage than others, and based on their abilities and results they can do so in any sphere of life be it buisness, musical groups, policing, community intiatives, etc. When they fail to meet requirements and expectations, they are replaced and made accountable for any fraud of theft, not given pensions for life after 4 years of poor service. It is a model that works well in other areas of life but we don't apply it to politics. 

the example you site of financial regulations being bulldozed to benefit the few corporate (banking) interests over those of the people is a propos.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Guys, try to stay away from the deep political discussions, we seem to have strayed back into a bunch of political/religious threads lately. Have to start clamping down again. I think this one was on the oil spill


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Guys, try to stay away from the deep political discussions, we seem to have strayed back into a bunch of political/religious threads lately. Have to start clamping down again. I think this one was on the oil spill


yeah,i realise that on this thread,and the other one (about august 6th 45) i got pretty deep into stuff that while i believe,isnt the place for and just starts arguments . i stand by my views but i apologise for getting into all that. i didnt come here to debate this kind of stuff,i came here to talk about guitars and music. but i got a little carried away and im sorry about that. ill stick to talking about music,gear, sports,and assorted silliness from now on. im not here to try to upset anyone,or raise my own blood pressure,lol. just extending the olive branch here.ill try to be cool from now on.

Bobby


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I see BP took it's time but finally got around to trying to recoup some if not all of that money. They have launched lawsuits against everyone. Over 100 billion dollars worth


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I see BP took it's time but finally got around to trying to recoup some if not all of that money. They have launched lawsuits against everyone. Over 100 billion dollars worth
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


buck forty a liter they are getting their money back in spades anyways


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Whoa, really?

We were told of an incoming increase and to fill up the other day. Price went from 1.17 to 1.13 lol.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

HAHA you are lucky, here in Burlington it's over 1.35 today (Friday Apr 22/11), it was 139.9 on Tuesday in town.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I filled up my truck the other day $175.00 I may start taking the wifes electric scooter out, or maybe buy one for myself


----------

