The latest oil spill shows..

[Feanor]

So we are clear on this, and don't get things twisted. I am not advocating that the government decide anything, I am mandating that the "American people" become more responsible and aware of the environment around them, and choose to drive more efficient cars, and be smart and embrace every means of efficient alternative fuels(and not necessarily corn) which in turn will save the environment, and cut us lose from having to make compromises to foreign states(Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran..and Venezuela for that matter). This is not political, it is personal. Taking personal responsibility for the plight of your own country does not have to be political.
....

Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

[GMichael]

Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

When will these political representives start running for office? I'll vote for them.

[Feanor]

When will these political representives start running for office? I'll vote for them.

Tough question. But I suggest start by selecting the "least bad" candidate and vote for him or her. Also I suggest participating in political activities supporting this candidate.

The "Tea Party" is a good thing from the perspective of participation -- trouble is their social & economic conservativatism is exactly what the US middle & working classes do not need to adapt to the changing world -- instead it plays into the agenda of the super rich and gobal corporations.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, it does. Obviously: because there will always be significant minority who place greed and self-interest above the common good. Remeber that we aren't just talking individual people; we are talking corporate interests, many of them global rather than national, that are driven exclusively by their next quarter earnings-per-share and nothing else. These interests must be compelled to do the right thing for the community by government.

What is wrong with government? First let's acknowledge in a democracy the goverment is the primary agent of the people. No private interest is so charged. If people don't like the government, they should vote for change rather than just condemn their government. The problem might that our political reps don't really represent us but instead corporate and funders.

To counter that, citizens need to critically indentify where their real interests lie and ignore to politicians clap-trap designed to appeal to their fears and prejudices. Is this asking too much? If you will, a major aspect of personal responsibility is electing political representives who represent the real, long term, interests of ourselves and communities.

Okay mister, you hijacked my comments in bold, and turned it into something that I didn't intend for it to be.

When I made that last comment, I was strictly talking about the cars we drive, and if we just changed from inefficient ones, to more efficient ones, that is not a political decision, it is a person responsibility decision designed to benefit the country in a NON political way.

In spite of the fact that advertisers have dangled fast big engine inefficient luxury cars before my face, I have not fallen for it. I have one luxury car now, and it is a hybrid. I have another sub compact car, and it is a hybrid. I plan on trading that sub compact car for another sub compact sports car, and it will be a hybrid as well. If the Volt turns out to be a good performer, I may even look into it as well, even if I do not have a taste(or stomach) for American cars.

[dean_martin]

I've never been to the west coast. My brother went to UCLA, but I couldn't go to his graduation. My wife went to San Francisco before we knew each other. One of these days it's gonna be my turn to go to the West Coast. I said all that because what I say next may be mistaken for regional bias. I've never seen traffic as heavy as I've seen in pics and video from the Los Angeles area. However, when you go to your beaches you do not have to look at drilling and production platforms so close to shore that you can wade out and touch them. We have to put up with that when we go to our Alabama beaches. I believe it's the same way in Louisiana and Mississippi. I'm not sure about the Texas coast, but you cannot see these drilling and production rigs from the Florida coast. I don't have a point or conclusion yet but somethin' ain't right.

In my environmental law class over 12 years ago I did a video presentation demonstrating the aesthetic impact on our coast from these drilling operations. Most of the comments from the audience were critical because of the money the state gets from those operations so close to shore in state waters.

Now, my stepson is on Dauphin Island. He's going through classes at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab that are offered only during the summer for his marine biology program. Oil began to come up on the Dauphin Island shores yesterday - a day earlier than predicted. There is talk of evacuating the island. That means my stepson will have to go to school an extra summer to take the sea lab classes to graduate assuming that people can return to the island next summer. His degree may be on hold indefinetly or his course of study will be severely impacted because he won't get the hands-on instruction that those before him received.

Tonight, the FOX perspective was finally explained in a way that I could understand it. (I don't watch FOX so it may have been explained before tonight.) The FOX pitch is that it's the Greenies' fault because we've pushed oil companies so far off shore that they can only drill in deep water instead of in shallow water where a problem like the one we have now can be dealt with with ease. What a crock of sh*t!

This problem is overwhelming. The gulf coast has been part of my family history since I was 6 years old when I lived in Mobile and spent family weekends on Dauphin Island. We celebrated my son's birthday on the Fort Morgan Peninsula from age 8 to 20. I haven't felt this kind of hopelessness since watching the footage from New Orleans after Katrina. The only consolation is the loss of life should not be comparable.

[Hyfi]

Haven't heard much of this in the national media yet, but the local media here on the Gulf Coast are reporting that a team of University of South Florida scientists have discovered a plume of oil just beneath the surface approximately 6 miles wide and 22 miles long stretching from the well-head towards Mobile Bay. They suspect that the large amounts of dispersants have kept or settled the oil below the surface. This news has spawned rumors of a plan to "hide" or cover up the enormity of the problem.

Fishing, shrimping and tourist industries are taking a huge hit at the worst possible time. If you saw Forest Gump you know he became a shrimper in Bayou la Batre which is a real community on the Alabama coast that depends on shrimping for its survival. The gulf coast's white sand beaches actually begin in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, AL a/k/a the Red Neck Riveara which depend on vacationers starting Memorial Day Weekend. Hotels, condos and rentals are booked months in advance and cancellations are piling up daily.

BP has openly committed to paying claims but the word is getting out from shrimpers, hotel owners, seafood wholesalers, etc. that the proof requirements are impossible to meet.

I'm not qualified to say much about the wetlands of Louisiana, but I'm sure large amounts of oil can't be good for them.

I heard an in depth talk about this last week on NPRs Science Friday. They talked about the fact that if we can't see it, it might not be there. The dispersants are doing exactly what they wanted them to do, BP that is. The downside to these plumes is that they will cause the oil to actually drop and ruin things we can't see as opposed to washing up on shore and ruining things we can see.

The other interesting thing they noted is that there was very similar spill off the coast of Mexico a few years back that spewed even more oil. The used the dispersants to keep it out of sight which in turn kept it out of the media. Almost nobody outside of where it happened ever even heard about it.

I wish we didn't have to depend on oil but I am not opposed to drilling if all precautions are taken and a fool proof way of stopping the flow no matter what is in place. It's a real shame the tree huggers are stopping on land drilling which is forcing more off shore drilling.

Norway's whole economy revolves around off shore drilling and they seem to know how to do it right. Not too questionable as to why they have the Norwegians helping out.

[dean_martin]

Hey, HyFi. I appreciate your comments on the use of dispersants, their effects, and the Mexico incident. It looks like there is some evidence that dispersants may be used to hide the size of the problem. Whether that was BP's intent is not clear at this time.

In my experience, "tree huggers" have had little or no influence on drilling on land. My firm negotiates leases on behalf of landowners with oil & gas companies for drilling for oil and natural gas. We negotiated leases for landowners in a large area last year. The test well was successful and now it is in production. Among the landowners are my mom, extended family members and other long-time clients of ours. My family stands to benefit directly depending on where the oil co. decides to drill next. My hands aren't clean when it comes to promoting drilling and getting the best deals I can for my clients. However, this background obviously allows me to conclude that "tree huggers" are not stopping on land drilling. I believe their efforts are focused on drilling on Federal lands such as wild life reserves and national parks. In my experience, their efforts have not stopped oil companies from drilling on privately owned lands. Furthermore, the oil companies go where the oil is. There is no doubt that the well that is leaking in the Gulf is tapped into a large oil reservoir. The oil companies would be there even if they were allowed to drill on Federal lands.

[thekid]

Dean

+1 on your comments.

I have had alot of people tell me recently about these conspiracies that usually involve either
A. The government sitting on/hiding etc huge oceans of oil for various reasons ranging from controlling the cost of gas so they can get higher taxes to a method of forcing people to develop/use alternative sources of energy or

B. Environmentalists and Communists joining forces to prevent anymore oil drilling in order to overthrow pro-capitalist democratic governments.

These conspiracies all tend to ignore the pro-oil political forces and that the market forces that encourage oil companies to find more oil whever it is located.