Haven't weighed in on the oil spill yet. It's far too depressing to dwell on from more than a few minutes at a time. I'm not sure how the journalists assigned to that beat keep plugging, day after day, filing stories about this not-even-yet-contained disaster.
It takes a lot of things going wrong at once for a spill of this magnitude to occur, but one factor has stuck with me for a day now, and I can't shake it. The oil rig has a siren designed to alert the crew when something really, really, lots of really very bad is happening.
That siren wasn't on. That's what Mike Williams, the rig’s chief electronics technician, told investigators. It was set to "inhibited," seemingly in order to cut down on false alarms disturbing the crew in the middle of the night.
I am in favor of sleep. Those of you who know me / live with me / have lived with me / can hear me snoring down the street, you all know this. I'm thinking of turning pro with the whole sleeping thing, if I don't end up blogging my way to superstardom and superwealthdom.
(As I'm sure you know, competitive EATING is a sport. They show it on ESPN and everything. This guy's an international icon. We can make competitive sleeping a reality. Join me. Let's live the dream. So to speak. PBS would televise it, for sure.)
So don't label me anti-sleep. But what reasoning led to this decision?
Supervisor: "My people need to be alert. They need deep, uninterrupted sleep to be productive. They can't have loud sirens going off willy-nilly at 3:30 a.m."
Corporate Stooge: "Good point. We like productivity. What do you suggest?"
Supervisor: "We could turn down certain warning systems."
Corporate Stooge: "Just incapacitate the superfluous ones. And keep them on, just muted."
Supervisor, later on, to crew: "You heard the man. Everything off at night. Ecological disasters, from now on, are permitted to happen in daytime hours only. Please inform Mother Nature, and retroactively pass the information on to the people who made this contraption decades ago."
Eleven people died in that explosion last April. A dumb siren might not have ended up saving their lives, and it might not even have had an impact on this whole catastrophe. (Which we ALL know is the direct fault of one Barack Hussein Obama, asleep at the switch again, busy using NASA for Muslim outreach and fostering war between Venezuela and Colombia instead of commuting to the Gulf of Mexico to run oil well shifts and conduct routing maintenance.)
But it's tempting to wonder how things would have shaken out differently if instead of comfort, safety had been the driving force behind safety procedures on the Deepwater Horizon.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A Fortunate Series of Events / 7-23-10
Why yes, I do continue to rip off everyone and everything for my headlines. Thanks for noticing.
I wrote about 3,529 posts on gay rights last year, but have neglected to wrap up some loose ends on that topic. (Goody!)
As it turns out, we do have an open democratic process in this country, when we take the trouble to defend it.
The Supreme Court thinks so too. It said as much last month, when the Supremes ruled 8-1 that if you want a referendum on the ballot and you sign your name to get it there, that becomes a matter of public record.
From Chief Justice John Roberts, who I would usually only quote in a fit of mockery, but not this time, I suppose: "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
Add a tally to the side in favor of an open records; subtract a point (more, if you feel like it) from the fearmongering hatecrowd. (Fine, OK, you have permission to take all their points.)
So what we had happen here in the last year or so, chronologically:
1. State legislators decide all adult citizens should have same civil rights
2. Angry people think that's a bad idea
3. Angry people seek anonymity even as they sign petition to get their anti-equality referendum on the ballot
4. Angry people win skirmish in lower court, receive anonymity
5. Secretary of State sues to make list of referendum signers public
6. Referendum fails anyway. Voters affirm civil rights actually apply to all citizens! (Narrowly. But still.)
7. Case makes its way to the Supreme Court
8. Open records win!
9. Gay couples continue to inch closer to full equality with straight married citizens.
10. We wait for court injuction to be lifted, and names become public.
And then, of course, 11: Violent Bitter Gay People get a hold of the list of referendum's signers and harass them mercilessly. Things escalate, and many people are injured and/or killed. Riots ensue.
Oh, that? That's just the theory put forward by the group dedicated to keeping civil rights segregated to their favorite list of Americans. Yeah, those people are generally right on the money, so that's probably what'll happen. Uh huh.
P.S.: WA Secretary of State Sam Reed and AG Rob McKenna, both Republicans, praised the Supreme Court's decision. Good for them. I generally like those guys. I voted for them once and I will again.
I wrote about 3,529 posts on gay rights last year, but have neglected to wrap up some loose ends on that topic. (Goody!)
As it turns out, we do have an open democratic process in this country, when we take the trouble to defend it.
The Supreme Court thinks so too. It said as much last month, when the Supremes ruled 8-1 that if you want a referendum on the ballot and you sign your name to get it there, that becomes a matter of public record.
From Chief Justice John Roberts, who I would usually only quote in a fit of mockery, but not this time, I suppose: "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
Add a tally to the side in favor of an open records; subtract a point (more, if you feel like it) from the fearmongering hatecrowd. (Fine, OK, you have permission to take all their points.)
So what we had happen here in the last year or so, chronologically:
1. State legislators decide all adult citizens should have same civil rights
2. Angry people think that's a bad idea
3. Angry people seek anonymity even as they sign petition to get their anti-equality referendum on the ballot
4. Angry people win skirmish in lower court, receive anonymity
5. Secretary of State sues to make list of referendum signers public
6. Referendum fails anyway. Voters affirm civil rights actually apply to all citizens! (Narrowly. But still.)
7. Case makes its way to the Supreme Court
8. Open records win!
9. Gay couples continue to inch closer to full equality with straight married citizens.
10. We wait for court injuction to be lifted, and names become public.
And then, of course, 11: Violent Bitter Gay People get a hold of the list of referendum's signers and harass them mercilessly. Things escalate, and many people are injured and/or killed. Riots ensue.
Oh, that? That's just the theory put forward by the group dedicated to keeping civil rights segregated to their favorite list of Americans. Yeah, those people are generally right on the money, so that's probably what'll happen. Uh huh.
P.S.: WA Secretary of State Sam Reed and AG Rob McKenna, both Republicans, praised the Supreme Court's decision. Good for them. I generally like those guys. I voted for them once and I will again.
A Bloodbath of Epic Proportions / 7-23-10
There's a regular poster on my favorite political blog, fivethirtyeight.com, and this conservative dude likes to make predictions. That's fine. I like to make predictions. I made some last fall, and I need to revisit them, amend them, and own up to the completely inane ones. Unlike people on TV ever do. Will anyone except for Jon Stewart ever hold pundits accountable?
So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.
That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.
And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.
Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.
I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.
So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.
(John 1, Spell-check 0.)
This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.
Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.
They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.
They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.
They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.
They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.
They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.
They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.
They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.
It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.
Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.
So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.
That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.
And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.
Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.
I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.
So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.
(John 1, Spell-check 0.)
This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.
Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.
They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.
They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.
They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.
They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.
They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.
They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.
They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.
It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.
Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)