Yet again, it has been a while since I've posted anything. Not too much this time, but something that has bothered me since I heard it.
President Obama said something recently, in his effort to shore up "bipartisan" support for the extension of the Bush-era middle-class tax cuts (I thought there were no middle-class tax cuts? I remember hearing long and loud that the Bush tax program was nothing more than breaks for rich buddies?), said something that was incorrect (well, to call it incorrect would be an understatement, but, it's what I'll have to go with).
The president of the United States, who, presumably, knows about the history of the United States (and that there aren't 57 of them), made the statement, "...this country was founded on compromise". While Obama was in school in Jakarta (ages 6-10), I understand that American history might not have been a major subject, but upon his return to the states, I would assume he would have learned that America was founded in the midst of war, not with hands reaching across a table in compromise.
"This country tends to move to the center" is something that i hear time and again. Or that the people want a centrist government. This statements are simply not true. There may have been a time when they were true, but that time is long past.
This country wants something other than what it has had, which is why election cycles seem to have a pendulum swing to them. For most of the late half of the 20th century, the Congress was owned by the Democrat party, regardless of the political affiliation of the president. For a nation that "likes the center", that is a rather consistent lean in one direction.
It seems that now that the Republicans have been able to mount a reasonable counter to what the Democrats have been working with/for for more than 50 years, suddenly, there's a desire to govern from the middle, and a tendency toward a "non-partisan moving forward".
This country was NOT founded on compromise. It was founded on conflict and disagreement over tyrannical rule by one who was out-of-touch with the people he governed. At the suggestion of compromise, the ruler's response was to send the military to try and quell the rebellion. Perhaps if the lessons of history could be better learned, political games might become less and less prevalent.
This idea of compromise ueber alles is a flawed one. It is impossible to make a decision if you are constantly seeking to compromise with others. Sometimes, an unpopular decision MUST be made, and followed through on. It's called leadership, and it is what we HAVE a representative form of government for. Yes, occasionally, giving something up for a gain that benefits the greater good is necessary, but that is no way to govern, no way to lead.
Rather than try to shed "labels" or partisanship, maybe what is needed is a little more basic respect. Compromise without respect is pointless.
You want a country with more compromise? Start by respecting that there may just be opinions and stances that you do not agree with, and dismissing them with insulting language may not be the best thing to do. Get rid of labels like "homophobe" applied to any who disagree with the idea of gay marriage, or "racist" applied to any who think that a uniform language in the country might be a better idea than police needing to be bilingual just to do their jobs.
Respect for opinions you might disagree with is the first step to compromise, and closer to what this country was founded upon. When the colonials were not given the respect of the king, they stood tall and earned it through force, not just in the Revolutionary War, but over the next half century.
These days, the idea of earning respect through force is somewhat absurd. But in some cases it almost seems necessary, since too many people have the attitude that ANY respect must be earned. I tend to speak on this topic (respect) a lot, and one lament that I have mentioned many times, is that the default for too many people is one of DISrespect. It seems people would sooner spit on someone as look at them. Add politics, and this amplifies.
Would it not be easier to start from a place of neutral respect? Imagine that everyone you see has a number floating above their heads. From the time you first see them up until the time you "encounter" them (speak to them, nod a hello, hold open a door, etc), what is that number? Is it a negative? Or a zero? You see them walk in your direction, and they stop to pick up and put back on the shelf, a can of soup that someone else dropped in the store. Does that number move at all upon seeing this? You see them almost trip over a small child, carelessly running across their path. Their face contorts in a mask of irritation, and they snarl to the parent about keeping their kid under control. What does this do to their number?
That was something of a tangent, but it is something to think about. If you want to meet someone halfway, do you first not have to respect at least some of what they do, represent, or are motivated by?
Sure, let's compromise. But let's find our respect, first, and learn that compromise is not what allowed these 57 states to be founded.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
The immigration blog...
I have seen is written, and heard it said that the immigration issue is not simply about the law, that it is a human issue, and one of love, acceptance, and recognition of our (as in Americans) own immigrant heritage.
Yes, this is a nation of immigrants, in that every American has immigration to this country in our heritage. But by the same token, this is a nation of laws, set down by "immigrants".
My forebears came to the US from Ireland and Italy (mostly. I have blood from most of Western Europe in my background).
They learned English (if they didn't already know it). But they also learned the American way of life. Yes, they held on to their own traditions, and interacted with "their own" people, but they also went outside of that comfort zone, and became American citizens, rather than "Irish-Americans", or "Italian-Americans".
Packages in stores were not changed wholesale to accommodate them. They either learned English, or shopped where they could get products in packages printed in their native languages. Unless they were in a store that catered to them specifically, they didn't expect the clerk to speak their language, and they most certainly did not get upset if the clerk couldn't speak their language.
They did not come to take advantage of a system that will provide assistance to them, they made their own way through hard work. And all along the way, they became Americans, both in legal status, and in tradition.
This seems to be lost on this new generation of immigrants.
The 80's were called the "me" decade, when selfishness was the order of the day. It seems that this "me" phenomenon has hit outside the US about 20 later than it did within.
Today's immigrants (primarily Latino) expect that the US will do all that is needed to accommodate them, regardless of weather or not the rules were followed. There seems to be a sense of selfish entitlement that this country owes them something because they made the trip to get here. And regrettably, there are many in this country who encourage this mentality, and enable the abusers, much as a friend might enable an addict by justifying their habit.
They cast aside the laws they find inconvenient, such as the ones governing how they enter the country to become citizens, and hold up those that allow them to ignore the legal way to immigrate to this nation, such as the 14th amendment (a totally separate blog post in itself). They demand protection under the law, after breaking the law first.
This seems to be a rather cynical way to take advantage of the legal system in this country, and too many people (almost entirely those of a liberal mindset) are willing to go along with it. It seems to be comparable to saying that the teenager who kills his parents should be shown mercy, because he is an orphan. There is too much looking at the effect, without first addressing the cause.
But too often, the idea is that "they are here now, and there are too many to deal with easily, so better to accommodate them than enforce the laws".
Many packages in stores are now in English and Spanish (occasionally I find French, but I chalk that up to product availability in Quebec). Calling customer service for many products/services has the option to press a number for English, and another for Spanish (what number would I press to speak to someone in Mandarin, Russian, Gaelic, or Swahili? What? That's not an option? Why only Spanish? That seems a little racist/elitist to me. But I digress). In some cases it is a requirement for getting a job to be able to speak Spanish.
While the United States has no "official language", English is the de facto language (odd, using a Latin phrase to make the distinction). This means that while it is not codified as such in law, English is the language that is "accepted" as being the one to use while interacting in the country. This is a distinction we share with the United Kingdom and Australia.
Wait, hold on a second. Stop the blog. Are you telling me in the United Kingdom, England, that English is not the official language?
Feel free to look it up. English is language that is simply accepted as the proper language to use, though it is not actually the "official", as set down in law, language to speak/read/write in England. As in the United Sates, where there are scattered laws establishing English as the official language in one region (or State in the US), there is no national law establishing English as the language to be spoken.
Back to the point at hand...
Not having English as the official language DOES NOT mean that any/all languages should be spoken here by all citizens, nor does it mean that an immigrant population gets to try and force THEIR language into a secondary role for interacting with people like the police.
The United States has always been described as a "melting pot". A place where people from all over the world could come and be welcomed into society. All that would be asked in return is a willingness on the part of the people who come here to assimilate into our society after joining it through the proper channels. This doesn't mean abandoning your heritage. This means embracing that you have come to a place that recognizes and celebrates our differences through recognizing and celebrating our similarities.
Too often lately (to stretch the "melting pot" metaphor), it seems as though there are some who wish to barge into our kitchen, mix their own ingredients, and add them to the pot, totally changing the final flavor to better suit them.
Simply accepting those who break the law to enter this country as citizens, and offering them all they ask for in terms of (especially financial) assistance is not an expression of love, it is foolhardiness. And while the two are very often indistinguishable from one another, the stability of a nation cannot depend upon either emotion or foolishness.
Yes, this is a nation of immigrants, in that every American has immigration to this country in our heritage. But by the same token, this is a nation of laws, set down by "immigrants".
My forebears came to the US from Ireland and Italy (mostly. I have blood from most of Western Europe in my background).
They learned English (if they didn't already know it). But they also learned the American way of life. Yes, they held on to their own traditions, and interacted with "their own" people, but they also went outside of that comfort zone, and became American citizens, rather than "Irish-Americans", or "Italian-Americans".
Packages in stores were not changed wholesale to accommodate them. They either learned English, or shopped where they could get products in packages printed in their native languages. Unless they were in a store that catered to them specifically, they didn't expect the clerk to speak their language, and they most certainly did not get upset if the clerk couldn't speak their language.
They did not come to take advantage of a system that will provide assistance to them, they made their own way through hard work. And all along the way, they became Americans, both in legal status, and in tradition.
This seems to be lost on this new generation of immigrants.
The 80's were called the "me" decade, when selfishness was the order of the day. It seems that this "me" phenomenon has hit outside the US about 20 later than it did within.
Today's immigrants (primarily Latino) expect that the US will do all that is needed to accommodate them, regardless of weather or not the rules were followed. There seems to be a sense of selfish entitlement that this country owes them something because they made the trip to get here. And regrettably, there are many in this country who encourage this mentality, and enable the abusers, much as a friend might enable an addict by justifying their habit.
They cast aside the laws they find inconvenient, such as the ones governing how they enter the country to become citizens, and hold up those that allow them to ignore the legal way to immigrate to this nation, such as the 14th amendment (a totally separate blog post in itself). They demand protection under the law, after breaking the law first.
This seems to be a rather cynical way to take advantage of the legal system in this country, and too many people (almost entirely those of a liberal mindset) are willing to go along with it. It seems to be comparable to saying that the teenager who kills his parents should be shown mercy, because he is an orphan. There is too much looking at the effect, without first addressing the cause.
But too often, the idea is that "they are here now, and there are too many to deal with easily, so better to accommodate them than enforce the laws".
Many packages in stores are now in English and Spanish (occasionally I find French, but I chalk that up to product availability in Quebec). Calling customer service for many products/services has the option to press a number for English, and another for Spanish (what number would I press to speak to someone in Mandarin, Russian, Gaelic, or Swahili? What? That's not an option? Why only Spanish? That seems a little racist/elitist to me. But I digress). In some cases it is a requirement for getting a job to be able to speak Spanish.
While the United States has no "official language", English is the de facto language (odd, using a Latin phrase to make the distinction). This means that while it is not codified as such in law, English is the language that is "accepted" as being the one to use while interacting in the country. This is a distinction we share with the United Kingdom and Australia.
Wait, hold on a second. Stop the blog. Are you telling me in the United Kingdom, England, that English is not the official language?
Feel free to look it up. English is language that is simply accepted as the proper language to use, though it is not actually the "official", as set down in law, language to speak/read/write in England. As in the United Sates, where there are scattered laws establishing English as the official language in one region (or State in the US), there is no national law establishing English as the language to be spoken.
Back to the point at hand...
Not having English as the official language DOES NOT mean that any/all languages should be spoken here by all citizens, nor does it mean that an immigrant population gets to try and force THEIR language into a secondary role for interacting with people like the police.
The United States has always been described as a "melting pot". A place where people from all over the world could come and be welcomed into society. All that would be asked in return is a willingness on the part of the people who come here to assimilate into our society after joining it through the proper channels. This doesn't mean abandoning your heritage. This means embracing that you have come to a place that recognizes and celebrates our differences through recognizing and celebrating our similarities.
Too often lately (to stretch the "melting pot" metaphor), it seems as though there are some who wish to barge into our kitchen, mix their own ingredients, and add them to the pot, totally changing the final flavor to better suit them.
Simply accepting those who break the law to enter this country as citizens, and offering them all they ask for in terms of (especially financial) assistance is not an expression of love, it is foolhardiness. And while the two are very often indistinguishable from one another, the stability of a nation cannot depend upon either emotion or foolishness.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Ahhh, Independence Day...
The great American summer holiday. In Spring, we've Easter. In Autumn, Halloween. In Winter we've Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.
In the Summer, we celebrate our Independence Day. Every July fourth, Americans break out the grills, the red white and blue, the frisbees, the sodas, beers, the hot dogs, burgers, steaks, and potato salad. Stores have mattress sales, patio furniture sales, pool supplies, car sales, and we all love watching people blow stuff up. Professionals light up the sky with fireworks, and amateurs keep emergency rooms busy with the same.
All to celebrate America's... what?
Many say birthday, but, to anyone who knows me, it should come as no surprise that I disagree, have my own opinion about it, and what I believe to be a reasonable argument as to why.
Look back in history. For many, I know this might involve dusting off the memory, or even *gasp* looking it up on-line or in an encyclopedia, or, if you don't want to go through all that, just read on.
On May 14, 1607, the Jamestown colony was established in Virginia, in what is now called Williamsburg. This was the first successful British colony on the mainland of the New World, and the first permanent settlement that would become a major factor in being able to establish the 13 colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States.
To me, this speaks of the birth of our nation. Following the whole birth metaphor, Britain would be the parent, and the Colonies (US) the child.
Fast forward from 1607 to the early 1700's. The colonies have grown into a child who started to resent the rules of its parent. By 1776, the Colonies have reached their surly teens, and started to rebel against the rules laid down by the parent. Britain said "my house, my rules", and Thomas Jefferson offered the words that allowed the surly teen to say, "Fine! I'm moving out!"
So as you grill the meat, eat the potatoes and slaw, and watch crap blow up, keep in mind that the United States isn't celebrating its birthday today, so much as telling off its parent.
And for at least 234 years, been able to get away with it without having to beg to move back in.
In the Summer, we celebrate our Independence Day. Every July fourth, Americans break out the grills, the red white and blue, the frisbees, the sodas, beers, the hot dogs, burgers, steaks, and potato salad. Stores have mattress sales, patio furniture sales, pool supplies, car sales, and we all love watching people blow stuff up. Professionals light up the sky with fireworks, and amateurs keep emergency rooms busy with the same.
All to celebrate America's... what?
Many say birthday, but, to anyone who knows me, it should come as no surprise that I disagree, have my own opinion about it, and what I believe to be a reasonable argument as to why.
Look back in history. For many, I know this might involve dusting off the memory, or even *gasp* looking it up on-line or in an encyclopedia, or, if you don't want to go through all that, just read on.
On May 14, 1607, the Jamestown colony was established in Virginia, in what is now called Williamsburg. This was the first successful British colony on the mainland of the New World, and the first permanent settlement that would become a major factor in being able to establish the 13 colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States.
To me, this speaks of the birth of our nation. Following the whole birth metaphor, Britain would be the parent, and the Colonies (US) the child.
Fast forward from 1607 to the early 1700's. The colonies have grown into a child who started to resent the rules of its parent. By 1776, the Colonies have reached their surly teens, and started to rebel against the rules laid down by the parent. Britain said "my house, my rules", and Thomas Jefferson offered the words that allowed the surly teen to say, "Fine! I'm moving out!"
So as you grill the meat, eat the potatoes and slaw, and watch crap blow up, keep in mind that the United States isn't celebrating its birthday today, so much as telling off its parent.
And for at least 234 years, been able to get away with it without having to beg to move back in.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Gracious grumbling...
Okay, so I have issues where my wife's father is concerned. Plain and simple, he's not my favorite person.
He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.
Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.
Let me explain how I make this distinction.
Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.
So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.
I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.
Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.
He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.
But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.
I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.
I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?
This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.
He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.
Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.
Let me explain how I make this distinction.
Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.
So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.
I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.
Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.
He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.
But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.
I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.
I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?
This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.
Friday, June 11, 2010
In defense (at least a little) of BP
Okay. So we have, what, about a billion gallons of oil streaming into the Gulf of Mexico, and threatening to follow currents, swing around Florida, and come up as far as North Carolina on the east coast.
The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).
Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.
Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.
This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.
So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.
Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.
Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.
A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".
Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.
Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.
Just a thought.
The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).
Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.
Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.
This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.
So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.
Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.
Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.
A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".
Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.
Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)