quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Whether he is or not is irrelevant.
Bobby Jindal is going to cry about the feds one way or another; it's a quick way to score points against Obama, and the people who desperately want this to be "Obama's Katrina" will eat it up.
A more relevant issue is whether or not the accusations are true. In terms of response — as in, whether the administration has been ignoring this issue — the answer is no, the fed has been all over this from the very beginning and Salazar's response has been hearteningly competent in an era where federal disaster response is coming out of a 'heckuva job' tarnished reputation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a blog post or a news article or a divining rod anywhere that actually lists, specifically, what people want from Obama that they aren't getting?
All I've been seeing for the last two weeks is "do more!" but with no specific requests except for Bobby Jindal throwing a hissy fit about barrier island construction that will take years to complete. And for that matter, that's pretty rich when Democratc in LA, and environmentalists in general have been complaining for years about natural barrier island destruction as a result of poor environmental management of the Mississippi Delta and surrounding Gulf regions. It's one of the reasons Katrina was worse than it needed to be.
But really, I can't take anyone seriously who says Obama is doing nothing when there are hundreds of ships and thousands of workers in the Gulf right now combating the problem. And I can't take anyone seriously who says Obama should take over and push BP out when the government doesn't have any better solutions in mind. And I can't take them seriously when they say he isn't doing enough but have no clue as to what more he could do.
As an aside, I've yet to decide who I'm really mad at in this situation, other than BP. It feels like I should be mad at BP, the MMS, whoever was in charge of creating the regulatory system that BP was operating under, and beyond that, I don't have nearly enough information to focus my anger yet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an aside, I've yet to decide who I'm really mad at in this situation, other than BP. It feels like I should be mad at BP, the MMS, whoever was in charge of creating the regulatory system that BP was operating under, and beyond that, I don't have nearly enough information to focus my anger yet.
posted
I wish I could honestly describe how I feel about Bobby Jindal but I'm at a loss for words that wouldn't violate the rules here regarding obscene language.
I wish I could be more excited about the fact that SOMEONE is getting on television and voicing the anger and concern of Gulf coastal residents, but its just ridiculous for Jindal to be that person. Here's a guy who accepted campaign money from BP and has supported lifting the ban on offshore drilling.
I would have some respect for him if he stepped up and described how this nightmare has forced him to reconsider his old positions. Not sure I'd believe him, but I'd appreciate the attempt.
Instead, he's just blowing hot air, coming up with kooky ideas, and trying to score some points for his party. He had his chance to make coastal restoration a priority and instead he spent his time undermining the educational system, making cuts to healthcare, and protecting himself and all his colleagues from ethics investigations.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
During Katrina the Republican Media Machine told the world that the Government was doing everything possible, and it looked that way to everyone except those in the effected areas.
Today the Republican Media Machine has told the world that The Government is doing NOTHING, and it looks that way to everyone except those in the effected areas.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Whether he is or not is irrelevant. While I think Mr. Jindal's idea of a barrier island is nonsense (It would take years to get it completed) there are other things that can be done to help out.
You can cry hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that the states need help down there.
Geraine, Can you please tell what things can be done to help out that are not being done? I keep hearing this same sentiment but I'm at a loss to come up with anything that the government should have been doing for the past month which is has not been doing. Tell me what the Obama adminstration should have done before or after this disaster that it has not done?
The only thing I can think of is that Obama needs to put a long term moratorium on deep water off shore drilling until we have developed new technologies and regulations that will prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. I don't see that happening as long as our economy is dependent on oil and I certainly don't see republicans supporting it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as far as BEFORE the accident, the Department of the Interior needed to clean up the MMS, and frankly, that IS something we knew needed to be done. I've been reading stories for years on environmental blogs about how the MMS is in bed with Big Oil and the lumber industry (Big Wood?) and that the government has not only been cheated out of billions of dollars in royalty payments from both of them, but the regulatory oversight of where to drill, the safety protocols in place, and in the forestry service, where to cut, have all been extremely lax. A lot of that was loosened under the Bush Administration, and a lot of it was already loose when Bush got there.
I didn't know that the MMS was quite as corrupt as the news is portraying it to be now, but we knew that something was hinky before this happened. I'm a little wishy-washy on whether or not I can blame that on Obama. Clearly he had a lot of priorities when he got into office, and he's been there less than two years with a lot of pressing concerns. The Minerals Management Service isn't something that gets priority. But maybe it should have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The administration could have (I won't say should have) mobilized emergency response much more quickly. For the first three days after the explosion they were treating this primarily as a search and rescue mission rather than an environmental disaster. It wasn't until after the oil leak was discovered that they mobilized their emergency management teams. To some degree this is what Bobby Jindal is complaining about; that the booms that are being used to contain the area of the spill weren't more rapidly available.
Now, whether they should have done this, I don't know. Mobilizing resources is expensive, and I think the administration thought they'd dodged a bullet for the first three days. If there had been no leak, and they had called out the emergency response team, they would have been denounced for wasting money on an emergency that didn't happen. It would be useful to know how likely the oil rig accident would be without the attendant well leak; if it was highly likely that a leak had occurred, I think it was negligent of the Administration to roll their response out so slowly. But if the leak was more like a "black swan" event, then I would be more hesitant to fault the Administration for not committing the resources more rapidly.
<edit>I'd also be interested in knowing why the top kill wasn't attempted sooner (like a month ago). Why were the cap and then the shunt tried first? Were they more likely to succeed or were they cheaper or what? To what degree was beaurocracy responsible for the delays in trying different solutions, and to what degree was it incompetence and to what degree was it just a lack of imagination and planning (on the part of the government and BP)?</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, they had a higher likelihood of success. But really, from how they're describing all these procedures, it sounds like there is really no way to gauge the likelihood of success on any of these procedures without wildly guessing. None of them have ever been attempted in anything close to a situation like this before. They've only been successful on land wells. I know there have been undersea spills off the coast of Africa, actually, on a regular basis from what I've heard, but never something this complicated.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of the Alaska oil exploration has been off the north coast where it would never impact on BC.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be differentiation between BP and all the other major oil companies. According to the network newscast I saw, BP has hundreds of major safety violations in recent years, for which they have been fined millions of dollars, and some of the violations still have not been corrected. Some of those violations led to the deaths of workers in a serious refinery fire a few years ago. The oil company with the next highest number of violations was Exxon (I think it was) with only 8 violations. The other oil companies listed had 6 or fewer violations. Clearly something is wrong systemically at British Petroleum, where they seem to regard fines for cutting corners as standard operating costs.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much of that is BP and how much is it the MMS? From what I've read, Great Britain has far more stringent standards than we do, and BP's record in the North Sea is far better than it is in the Gulf and elsewhere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama has been in control, "Since day one"...in his own words. Good thing he spent three hours in Louisiana today (on top of his 5 hours on the golf course). Still waiting for him to even mention the 500 year flood in Tennessee. It's particularly telling...Obama's destruction of the gulf coast will be far worse than Bush's during Katrina. Bush's response to New Orleans was faster than Obama's to the spill. Where's the media outcry?
Legally, Bush responded as soon as legally possible, when a state requested assistance in state territory. Legally, Bush couldn't send help until the governor requested it. The spill is in federal waters and state governors have been begging for help for weeks.
Who is more inept?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, so Obama went out there with a wrench and jammed the BOP open to cause the spill? Man, that guy must HATE the environment AND the south. By the way, what do you expect him to do? Head down there, personally, in HazMat gear to clean up the mess himself?
I'm not saying there aren't fair criticisms to be made, but yours are too silly to be taken seriously. I feel like I'm being overly defensive of Obama when I really don't intend to be, but really, what am I defending when the charges thus far are either laughably ridiculous or so vague as to be non-existent?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The oil platform and spill is in federal waters. The sole domain of the federal government. The federal government (president) cannot intervene in a city or state without the governor's invitation and no state governor has authority over the waters surrounding the spill....that's federal waters.
The federal government under Bush offered assistance to the state of Louisiana before the governor requested help. The federal government couldn't provide help until authorized by the the governor of Louisiana. The disaster was in state territory.
In this situation, the governor of Louisiana has been begging for help for weeks. He's been begging for help to protect his state's shores from a disaster coming from federal waters. The oil rig, in federal waters, was immediately the president's responsibility. He not only failed to react to his responsibility in federal waters, he's ignored the pleas of state governor's.
Bush offered help before the governor asked and his assistance couldn't be enacted until the governor authorized. In this situation the disaster began in Omama's juristiction and the governors have been begging for help. The federal beurocracy was too slow for Louisiana's request to build sand bars. Louisiana shouldn't have to get permission from the federal government to build sand bars to protect its beaches. Unfortunately, federal law requires it.
The most responsive government is the one closest to the people. Our nation was founded on power granted to the government by people. The most powerful governments, local. This has been turned upside down. People give power to the town, towns to the county, counties to the state and states to the fed. The federal government was created by the states. Now, people lose their livelihoods, town's are flooded with oil and states are decimated by federal bureaucracy. Governor Jindal knows what is best for his state. The inland water ways of Louisiana would be protected if he didn't have to wait for federal approval.
Government closest to the people is the best.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the things that Obama did not do that you think he should have?
You're listing more generalities with no evidence, or barring evidence, even specifics.
quote:The federal beurocracy was too slow for Louisiana's request to build sand bars. Louisiana shouldn't have to get permission from the federal government to build sand bars to protect its beaches. Unfortunately, federal law requires it
Obama isn't in charge of sand bar management. The Army Corps of Engineers is, and they, GASP, wanted to double check the plan to make sure it would work, was feasible, and was the best use of manpower in the situation before launching a major engineering process! That's insane! Why would we stop and think about something before just DOING IT!?
But let's say for the sake of argument that building it is the right idea. If Obama had jumped over the normal process of doing things and had said "Gentleman, move, that, sand!" It would be built right now, and LA would be fine right? Right? Oh no! It turns out that building these artificial barrier islands would require massive resources, importing dredges from across the country, and could take SIX to NINE months to complete! And that scheming Obama with his hatred for America has made them wait a week to double check the plan. God, I just HATE that guy.
Also, why are you bitching at Obama for following federal law. It's not Obama's fault that the law requires Jindal to get approval from the ACoE.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Governor Jindal knows what is best for his state.
Ok, that made me giggle, and I'm a classic Republican when it comes to power structures.
The problem, to me, is that we went into the Gulf half-cocked with no clue what we'd do if anything went wrong. We knew we couldn't fix it if a major spill happened and we did it anyway. We stuck our heads in the sand and said nothing bad was going to happen and now, oops, our sand is full of oil.
I think I see this situation as more a symptom than a problem itself. Which thread had the article by the former IMF guy who siad America's become an oligarchy? That's how I see this. One more instance where the elite get to do what they want while everyone else fails to get ahead following the rules.
We've got a systematic problem with how we operate these days, and we need to figure out how to force change on the ruling elite (CEOs and government types) or we may not have a USA in another hundred years.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: To me the argument is that Obama has been ignoring what is happening and has not sent support to the states affected by the spill. ... States have been asking the government to step in and help in the efforts, but feel that so far they have not received the support they need.
If bobby jindal is one of those making this argument, I am going to laugh my head off for obvious reasons.
posted
A hint of good commentary worming its way out.
quote:This conflates two very different things. Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.
The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government.
FEMA's job was to handle disasters like Katrina, but Dan Bartlett had to make a DVD for Bush to watch because he didn't even know what every American knew as the tragedy was unfolding. Newsweek:
The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One. How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.
I take issue with how Axelrod and his team approached the spill because the president should have been out there sooner, but to draw a parallel to the Bush's Katrina disaster is completely ridiculous. The White House knew what was happening and didn't need a DVD of news reports made for them by Robert Gibbs to help alert them to the crisis. If conservative governance proved anything, it was that without competent oversight, regulations, and a willingness to then implement those tools, horrific things result.
I made the same argument to the very unstable Andrew Breitbart on last Friday's LA Weekly panel discussion, but he was too busy drinking beers on stage to engage in a real dialogue about anything other than the ACORN thugs who helped cause the global financial meltdown, as he phrased it.
quote:The standard toxicity test for chemical compounds is called the LD50. LD stands for Lethal Dose and 50 indicates 50 percent. In other words, LD50 means the lowest dose at which a material kills half of the test subjects.
The results are usually given in milligrams of compound per kilograms of body weight. Many of these tests are conducted on laboratory rats. To give you a few rat results: the LD50 of table sugar (sucrose) is 29,700 mg/kg. For table salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) it's 3,000 mg/kg. Really poisonous substances, though, measure in the single digits: Sodium cyanide (NaCN), for instance, possesses an LD50 score of 6.4 mg/kg.
Basically, the lower the number, the deadlier the compound. Poisons in water and air are usually measured in lethal concentration rather than dose - in other words an LC50. Which got me wondering about the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's shattered oil rig. Not to mention the chemical dispersants being used in attempt to break down the spreading oil. What kind of lethal concentration might be building up in those waters?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data on dispersants provide the LC50 in parts per million. Of course, these tests aren't done on rats but sea creatures, in this case Menidia, a small silvery fish that likes to hover near the water's edge and Mysidopsis, a tiny brine shrimp.
As has been earlier reported, Corexit, the compound chosen by BP, has some of the lowest LC50 numbers on the list, meaning that it's among the most poisonous. Also, it's among the least effective on Louisiana crude (the type flowing from the Deepwater break). Why the EPA went along with this choice remains a mystery to me - or maybe I just think the answer would depress me - but under public pressure the agency has now ordered BP to find an immediate alternative.
Nearly 700,000 gallons of Corexit have already been poured into gulf waters. But that pales, obviously, beside the amount of Louisana crude, now estimated at a minimum of 6 million gallons. So, I wondered, what is the LC50 of Louisiana crude on small salt water dwellers?
Of course, I realize, that comparing lethal concentrations is not straightforward. The results differ by species and by time as well as by amount of poison, The EPA numbers for Corexit 9500 (the formula used most heavily by BP) show that at 2.62 ppm, the dispersant kills half the silver fish in 96 hours/ four days. At a slightly higher concentration - 3.4 ppm - the compound kills half the little shrimp in two days.
As for crude oils, a very decent analysis by the American Petroleum Institute shows that all are toxic, but their effects vary with thickness and with the different chemistry seen in say, oil from the Gulf of Mexico and oil from Kuwait. The best estimate I've seen for South Louisiana Crude - after hours of exasperated research - comes from thesis work done at Louisiana State University several years ago. For instance, the study found that Louisiana crude had an LC50 of 4250 ppm for the warm-water loving killifish.
This suggests that crude oil is less acutely poisonous than chemical dispersants. But here's the really interesting finding in that terrific little study. Adding a dispersant - specifically Corexit 9500 - made the oil more poisonous. A lot more poisonous.
The "dispersed" oil had an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects. The study found a similar worsening for white shrimp, although not quite as dramatic. "Dispersed oils were more toxic than crude oils," noted the report.
Oh, definitely. Still, you might argue that this is only a master's thesis conclusion. But as it turns out there are plenty of other studies raising very similar warnings and they go back quite a ways. A report in the journal Environmental Toxicology a decade ago concluded that "LC50 values indicate that dispersed oil combinations were significantly more toxic to these organisms than .. crude oil." Another study, this time of snails and amphipods reached exactly the same conclusion.
To be fair, a study of the Australian octopus found no increased toxicity. But don't you wonder what we're doing out there in the fragile environment of the Gulf, whether we're reducing the spill damage or just turning the whole area into one ever-more poisonous bowl of toxic soup?
And don't you wish our officials gave any indication that they knew more about it than we do? I love doing this kind of research but in this case I'd much rather have our country's so-called regulators waving the LC50 red flag ahead of me.
posted
We should be doing what they did in the Persian Gulf for a similar situation. There's a bubble of oil miles wide and miles long. When this happened in the Persian Gulf, tankers were sent out to suck up the bubble. Of course, in America there are probably law suits about who owns the oil. Cant have a Shell tanker sucking up BP's oil bubble.
They are doing nothing. In a sick way, I'm looking forward to the oil getting in the loop current and washing up on the east coast. I hope the illegal aliens from AZ head straight for MA,...the sanctuary state.
It wont be a sanctuary state for long, once Boston replaces Phoenix as the kidnapping capital of the nation. (#2 in the world)
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any volunteers to go down to New Orleans and start cleaning pelicans? The economy down there, primarily based on seafood, is going in the toilet.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great uniter doesn't care about the south. His election doesn't depend them. A 500 year flood in Louisiana isn't even newsworthy.
The devastation of New Orleans, be it oil or hurricane, depends upon the political expediency of those in power. The destruction of a city destroyed Bush,...the destruction of an entire state will be ignored to protect Obama.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, provide a link to what I am not reading.
I know there was a preapproved plan to burn the oil but the federal government didn't have the equipment necessary. I know that the governor of Louisiana has requested federal approval to put up sand bars, without answer for three weeks. He should've done it without federal approval.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'm going to give you some facts, here. I don't want to hear you repeating untruths again, 'k?
1) There has been equipment out there scooping up oil since the first couple of days after the spill. There are a fair number of reasons why this has not been as successful as one might hope. 2) The federal government does not, indeed, own (much) oil burning equipment. It has never been considered the job of the federal government to burn oil in the event of a spill; cleanup efforts have always been the responsibility of the guilty corporation. Once it became clear that BP was not sufficiently responsible, the government hired remediation experts (and billed their time to BP). Are you suggesting that the federal government should have more direct oversight over ocean rigs? 3) Bobby Jindal has wanted for some time to build some big sand bars in the Gulf, for all kinds of reasons. This gives him an excellent opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the sand bars are likely to dramatically change the environmental conditions at the mouth of the Mississippi, may well wind up diverting oil east onto Mississippi shores (and potentially into the Atlantic), and -- as requested, at least -- will take nine months to build. As required by law, Jindal's request was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers, who found a number of flaws and have suggested a few changes to the plan (including changes in priority and berm design that would have the most critical berms completed within a month). This is not a minor thing that Jindal is asking for. It might well have worse effects than the oil itself, in the same way that dispersants are considerably worse than raw crude. That the Corps first reviewed his request -- and certainly didn't give him the silent treatment, either; records show that he received replies every time he asked for an update, which was all of twice -- is, IMO, merely responsible stewardship.
But, of course, none of this has anything to do with your real point, which apparently revolves around Mexican kidnappers in Phoenix and their desire to move to Boston.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a lighter and semi-OSC-related note, did you see the story about James Cameron speaking at an official "listening session" on how to deal with the oil spill?
quote:The director of Avatar, the world's highest-grossing film, and the previous record-holding movie, Titanic, is considered an expert in the technology of deep-sea diving, having used submersibles in a succession of his films.
His 1989 film The Abyss is set underwater around an oil rig where a US nuclear submarine has crashed. The film was shot in a deep-sea canyon in the Caribbean known as the Cayman Trough. The make-believe oil company that owns the rig in Cameron's underwater thriller is called BP, standing for Benthic Petroleum.
quote:Since the flight restrictions were expanded on May 11, private aircraft must get permission from BP’s command center to fly over a huge portion of the Gulf of Mexico encompassing not just the growing slick in the Gulf, but the entire Louisiana coastline, where oil is washing ashore. If a request is denied, aircraft must stay 3,000 feet above the restricted area, where visibility is minimal.
quote:Photographers who have traveled to the Gulf commonly say they believe that BP has exerted more control over coverage of the spill with the cooperation of the federal government and local law enforcement. “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,’ ” says Charlie Varley, a Louisiana-based photographer. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.”
I'm not a huge fan of BP telling people what they can't do.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I had been wondering why the local news channels weren't showing the effects of the oil spill on wildlife, aside from pictures of the spill invading the marshland grasses. But I hadn't tried looking for the pictures cause I knew they'd break my heart.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I had been wondering why the local news channels weren't showing the effects of the oil spill on wildlife, aside from pictures of the spill invading the marshland grasses. But I hadn't tried looking for the pictures cause I knew they'd break my heart.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well that felt like a gut punch. Where are the people on the beaches with buckets of Dawn and toothbrushes to wash them? Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find myself wondering why they didn't use a wider diameter oil-recovery riser. It's just bloody arithmetic: 2670psi pressure from oil deposit to seabed. 385psi of "suction" from seabed to surface. So a seabed-to-surface pipe with (2670divided-by385 or) ~7times the cross-section of the deposit-to-seabed pipe will suck up all of the oil.... without even having to have any sort of seal between the two pipes.
That's seven pipes of the same diameter or one pipe with (squareroot-of~7 or) ~2.64 times the diameter of the deposit-to-seabed pipe.
No worries about over-pressurizing the BlowoutPreventer or the wellhead casement. And if ya wanna suck up less oil to make sure that no seawater enters the line, a simple valve at the top can lessen the "suction".
posted
This is all complications with the well's depth and the large amounts of methane ice that threaten to f*** up the entire operation at all points.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bobby Gindhall loves sand barriers...he's been lobbying for them for a very long time.
Even if that were the case, you're accusing Gindhal of following Emanuel's motto. "Never let a crises go to waste".
Bobby Gindhall cares about his state but the federal government is slow to react. The best and most reactionary government is local government. We live in an upside down nation. Our founders intended a nation in which a town can trump the feds. The feds are only suppose to trump a town when it comes to individual rights. Federal law trumps state law. If the state law is constitutional, the feds have no position.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time giving your opinion any real consideration when you can't even spell Jindal's name correctly.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the state law is constitutional, the feds have no position.
Do you understand the legal rationale that gives the Army Corps of Engineers the right to review any man-made alterations to the mouth of the Mississippi?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
