roachboy

idyllic: alot of my empathy and sadness---more than that---over this follows from the fact that when i look out my window i see a salt marsh. i am endless fascinated by it, by this type of environment, and i find it unbelievable and entirely unacceptable that this catastrophe has happened, that it continues, that so little has been done to protect the wetlands, so little co-ordination so little concern for any co-ordinated anything-----except on the part of bp's media crisis team. i'm also disgusted with the federal and state governments, but more shocked by the regulatory set-up that's been in place, which made something like this inevitable, from accident to inability to deal with it---even as this particular case remains an accident. so yeah, i feel this even as i live in new england. these places that are being destroyed are special. it's beyond tragic because its entirely unnecessary.


================



ace, i've made my positions clear.

what you call a "tizzy" is nothing more than exasperation at the fact i find myself bothering to engage with someone who simply refuses to do the work required to be taken seriously. it bothers me that against my better judgment i waste my time interacting with you.

as for your pissy ridiculous "questions"....i've already answered them.

to summarize:

i have made it clear what the directions are that the research has taken in this thread.

i have tried to integrate these directions of research through interpretations that in some details have changed as the information i have at hand changes. but the overall line has been clear.

the condition of possibility for this accident was the regulatory regime itself.
i've posted alot of information about how that regime operated.
i've posted information about minerals management. i posted a copy of the lease for the fucking site the deepwater horizon was on that allow anyone who looks, including you if you bothered, to see exactly what bp was exempted from providing.
there's plenty of information--more than enough----to render you're claims in defense of bp meaningless.


moreover, there's material in this thread about bp's history of cutting corners on safety and environmental considerations in the gulf in particular.

and there's ALOT of information about bp not following their own procedures in this particular situation. there's ALOT of information about negligence. and it's all public record. if you bothered to read, you'd see it.

that an accident reflects long-term problems and is ringed round with general and specific problems on bp's part, on halliburtons part and transocean's part does **not** mean that what happened wasn't an accident.
no-one outside of the straw-man machine you seem to have in your brain has said anything other than that.

where the problems of regulatory scheme and bp converge for real is in the 37 days that's passed since the accident. what's happened follows in a straight line from what conditioned or enabled it.

you're stuck on some idiotic claim that bp "had a plan"---that idiotic claim has been demolished over and over by me, by jazz, by jay, by others. there was no plan functionally to deal with problems that could arise with deepwater drilling like this in significant measure because mms did not require bp to generate the scenarios that would have been the basis for developing the technologies and contingency plans that should, obviously, have been in place. period. there is nothing you can say that changes this. the documentation is in the thread.


my politics are clear. i make no secret of them.

i don't have anything else to say.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite