Ridiculous Video of the Day

Thanks to a reader who sent in this one. This is "ridiculous" because it is ridiculously awesome. Who brings a guitar to a governmental commission hearing? This guy does.

In An Attempt To Sound As Off-Base As Possible...

By TIM KILLEEN

Kentucky Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul, claimed that President Obama's remarks against BP could cause the oil giant to go out of business. Funny, I would've thought it would be the spewing of thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying economies and ecosystems and losing the nation's trust that would have done that. But, besides the obvious idiocy of the comment, there is an underlying premise to what Dr. Paul is saying.

He explained later that if BP were to go under, it would not be able to pay for the cleanup of the disaster it created. Either Paul is being as pro-business or as anti-business as any politician could be by making his statement. The likely scenario, judging from his small-government-is-best past, is that Dr. Paul really believes that the government is bullying BP and that a corporation can fix its mistakes best without an agency breathing down its neck. In that case, his "wouldn't be able to pay for the cleanup" clarifier would simply be a PR tactic to keep the media (who salivates for the chance to jump on him again) off his back.

However, if Paul really meant what he said as an explanation, he just may be the least business-friendly politician in the country. Essentially, he's saying that the only reason we need this company to continue to exist is so that we can squeeze out of it as much as possible, after which, it's of no use to us. With his quasi-defense (and subsequent backtrack) of southern restaurant owners who wanted to exclude black patrons, it can be assumed that Rand Paul is fairly pro-business. I doubt that he wants BP to stay around simply for its responsibility to the Gulf. In either event, the oil company has paid $3.12b so far on the cleanup- only a fraction of the $17b it made last year. I doubt BP will file for bankruptcy any time soon; but if it should, it would be disingenuous to lay it anyone's doorstep but its own.

Gov. Jindal's Secret

By CHADWICK FLORES

In an interesting turn of events, for those looking for someone else to point fingers at for the BP oil spill, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has vetoed an amendment to release his office's records on their response to the disaster. As infuriating as this news may sound to citizens of the Gulf Coast region, to be completely honest there is no secret Jindal's administration set the table for this disaster of epic proportions. It does get the curious mind wondering just what kind of dangerously incriminating details will not see the light of day...for now. In a disaster of this magnitude - where its impact will be felt for years in the Gulf Coast economy, in the courts, and on the beaches - it seems likely that details of the relationship between BP and Governor's office will eventually come out. Regardless of Gov. Jindal's efforts to sequester administrative details, the jury may already be in on his leadership in the court of public opinion.

Hair For The Environment?

The Detroit Free Press explains what it is, arguably, one of the most unappealing solutions to the oil spill cleanup. That's right, boons full of human hair! Hey, if they work (BP says they sink) that's great, but you've got to admit, it's pretty disgusting.

Get Real, Britain

Clive Crook does well to note Britain's "whining" over what they perceive to be "anti-British" sentiment over the BP disaster. Similar pieces have been written on other sites and many British are defending the oil company, claiming that that their pensions depend upon its success. This all begs the question: How do the British possibly have any right to get angry over this?

As Crook points out, anti-British sentiment has been almost non-existent in the whole deal and if the situation were reversed we'd be hearing about how unbelievable it was that the "competent and confident" Americans couldn't fix the problem. Americans are mad at BP because they continue to destroy an important ecosystem in our country, not because they're British. We'd be mad if it was Shell or Exxon or whomever else. British pride and sense of honor may be even higher than its American counterpart, but on this one, all they can rightfully do is admit that one of their companies made a (huge) mistake and hope things get better in the Gulf.

Ridiculous Video of the Day: Truth Through Comedy

As noted in a previous RVOTD, I find that one of comedy's greatest functions (besides just entertainment) is pointing out social issues through farce. This is an absolutely perfect example.

Ridiculous Video of the Day

Today's RVOTD is a tribute to BP's Tony Hayward and has terrible gaffes. Sure, we've heard them a hundred times before, but that doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

Analyzing Palin's Logic

Yesterday, Sarah Palin- one time VP candidate, half time governor, full-time "mama grizzly"- posted a note on her Facebook page, blaming "extreme enviros" for the BP oil spill and claiming that drilling in places like the protected ANWR would have prevented such a disaster. Because some 7,000+ people (at the time of this writing) clicked that they "liked" Palin's post, I think it's important to go through the major portions of it and look at the claims being made.

Palin writes:

This is a message to extreme “environmentalists” who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing “clean and green” about your efforts. Look, here’s the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don’t like America. Some of these countries don’t care for planet earth like we do – as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

First, environmentalists don't protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore, they protest drilling for oil offshore (because of the fear of exactly what's happening) and onshore in certain special wildlife sanctuaries. There are, surprisingly, other means of "energy production" that don't even involve oil- wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.- and environmentalists all for those right here in America.

With your nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you’re doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You’re not preventing environmental hazards; you’re outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Really? Nonsensical? The point is to keep certain areas safe from environmental disasters. Say what you will about the likelihood of such a catastrophe vs. the benefit of domestic oil, it certainly makes some sense. Also, what makes Palin and others believe that by opening domestic drilling cites, foreign countries won't still be used for oil as well? Oil companies don't care if we're dependent on foreign oil, just that we're dependent on oil. There's no set number of drilling cites that can be active at any one time, and opening up more cites doesn't mean companies will close down others to drill at home, they'll just drill in both places and make higher profits.

Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There’s nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.

Honestly, let's be fair here. Environmentalists concerned about drilling disasters are not the following: "radical"- they have been proven to be correct through the BP spill and because shallow-water drilling has also led to disasters which is why the ban was put in place to begin with; "damaging the planet"- oil companies who screw up or do their jobs negligently are doing that, not the people who want to protect wildlife; un-clean and un-green- once again, simply because an oil driller has done his job improperly does not mean it's the fault of environmentalists who worked to bar him from screwing up in wildlife refuges. There are options outside of drilling in ANWR, shallow coasts and deep water- we've been getting our oil elsewhere (including on-land American drilling cites) for years.

This type of rhetoric goes over big with the folks who need a mantra to chant and a "tough lady" to follow, but it simply has no base in logic. Oil disasters are caused either by fluke accidents or, more often, by human error and negligence in drilling. I understand Palin has an affinity for oil companies, but there comes a time when even the poor, battered, defenseless corporation deserves to take responsibility for its actions.

Ridiculous Video of the Day: Really?

Forgive me, Tony Hayward, if you aren't first and foremost in the people whose lives are in my thoughts and prayers in the gulf right now. I'm sure it's ripped your life apart by having to work non-stop to clean up the worst man-made environmental disaster in American history, but I think most people's sympathies lie elsewhere.

Can't Have It Both Ways

With the gulf oil disaster now halted, at least for the moment, one wonders what the hell took so long (to be fair we've all been wondering that for a good month now). Almost everyone has been blaming BP (as they should), few have mentioned much about TransOcean and a good number of folks on the left and (especially) the right have been blaming the Obama Administration.

Now, to be fair, I also blame all three of these parties- the first two for causing the spill through what looks like negligence and a greedy oversight of obvious safety issues; and the administration for such a poor effort at cleaning it up. The administration claimed that BP was needed for the cleanup because it had the know-how and the equipment to deal with such an undertaking, which is probably true. But know-how and equipment don't necessarily mean you have to be in charge, just that you can execute the plan you're told to execute. E.J. Dionne, Jr. points out at The New Republic the poor choice of putting free enterprise in charge of disaster cleanup.

In Dionne's piece, a good point is made about the conservative critique of the government's role in this. For the past couple of weeks, conservative commentators like Sean Hannity have been complaining and complaining about the government's slow response to pleas from the likes of small-government enthusiasts like Bobby Jindal. What right do they have to do that, though? If the government would have swooped in on day one, told BP "this is how it's gonna be," mounted some large effort and started dealing with the cleanup, wouldn't these same people be complaining that government needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise do it- that entrepreneurs could do it better?

These are the same "commentators" who are still complaining about TARP and the stimulus package, while at the same time complaining about unemployment being high- as if by allowing our biggest corporations to close and not putting money into the economy unemployment wouldn't be even higher than it is today. You can complain about government being too big and about deficit spending all you like. You can say these things are ruining America. I may not agree with you, but I understand your concern. But you can't have it both ways. Either government should get out of the way and let free enterprise handle a situation or they shouldn't. Make up your minds.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

As logic often eludes chanting crowds, the environmental dangers of offshore drilling seemed either to escape the audiences of John McCain's 2008 campaign rallies or just not make any difference at all (I hope the former, I assume the latter). However, the recent spill in the Gulf is a perfect example of why the ban on offshore drilling (put in place by a Republican President) existed in the first place and why it needs to stay in effect now.

Dan Lashof notes in the Huffington Post:

The damage being done by the oil gushing out of the hole left by the Deepwater Horizon blowout and coating birds, killing turtles, decimating fisheries and destroying wetlands is visible for all to see. Had it been successfully produced by BP and burned for its energy, the oil would have been converted into carbon dioxide, which is colorless and odorless but still dangerous.

However, as issues become more and more politicized and politics becomes more and more polarized, we see sides being taken even on environmental issues as obvious as this. For some, the devastation of an ecosystem just doesn't seem to matter. So, let's not just focus on the environmental aspect of the issue; let's come to the political right from a perspective they understand and love: economics.

Look here and here to see one aspect of the economic impact of an oil spill. However, it's not just local and small businesses being harmed. BP will have to pay substantial amounts for the cleanup and, though I don't know for sure, one could assume they'll pay out more to clean it up than they would have, simply, to implement stronger safeguards. Shipping costs will go up for any business whose freighters had to go out of their way so as not to interfere with the cleanup effort. Litigation costs that will arise out of this catastrophe will be high. Tourism in an area still hurting from Katrina will be down this summer. Federal, state and local governments will, surely, bear some of the financial burden. All of these are strong economic incentives to keep from risky drilling in offshore areas. While "Shine, Baby, Shine" is a much less catchy slogan, we need to consider that the economic drawbacks to implementing costly solar and wind power programs would be mitigated by the fact that such programs pose much less risk for costly damage control.