CNN is reporting this morning that BP has upgraded impact of the oil spill from "very modest" to "environmental catastrophe". Say it ain't so, Joe! What clued you in? The fact that by last week already over 50 miles of Louisiana coast had been soiled by the spreading oil slick? This mirrors the Bush Administration public relations effort during Katrina, seemingly oblivious to what was playing on television screens across the country.
I have no doubt some unexpected combination of human error and mechanical failures occurred. No doubt "white glove" post-audits will be done critically examining the protocol for any deviation from "best practices". What I fault BP on is its failure to have been proactive; it's not enough merely to comply with federal regulations. The fact is deepwater accidents pose special engineering challenges, given the extreme depth and pressure. What we have seen play out comes across to the public as seat-of-the-pants problem solving. Why didn't we anticipate, for example, the ice crystal problem for the giant dome? If the Top Kill approach, which appears to be working, succeeds, why didn't we try it weeks ago? I personally would have preferred to see BP compare and contrast land-based versus offshore oil leaks and documented solution alternatives.
The same point could be made over the actual spill impact. For example, a prominent case example for a 1993 Saudi oil leak involved the use of supertankers; why didn't BP use supertankers? Even if the federal government failed to acquire fire booms, why didn't BP have them?
The bottom line is BP's failed leadership and communication issues in articulating its position and strategy and its apparent "not-invented-here" principles in attempting to address the oil leak problem are having profound effects on the future of domestic exploration and production. Obama is using the accident, the first major spill in over 20 years, in his version of progressive populism, to justify freezing or even canceling lease sales, increasing the bureaucratic timetable and burden. Every barrel deferred or canceled erodes the strength of our currency and worsens our trade imbalance.
End to Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Thumbs Up
Progressives make it very easy for me to want to oppose the change; I do not like victimization politics. I also oppose using the term "marriage" to describe a domestic partnership between gays, and I have religious and moral objections to non-traditional relationships and behaviors.
I am, and have been, supportive of gays serving in the military; I have mentioned in past posts even when I served in the Navy years ago, it was common knowledge that an officer and (separately) an enlisted woman were lesbians. Most of us felt what people did outside of duty hours was their business. (Obviously there are some legally and morally unacceptable behaviors, like rape and child predator activities.)
Personally, I'm not sure why gays want to serve openly; I would simply prefer to eliminate discussion of one's sexual preference from hiring or other personnel decisions. Even though most polls show a clear majority supporting voluntary participation of gays in the military, I have decidedly libertarian/individualist principles here: the right of an individual to participate in public service should not be subject to a majoritarian veto.
I think many pro-defense social conservatives are using the wait-until-the-military-review-is-over rationalization, but this is a disingenuous defense, merely a stalling tactic. Similarly, I have no doubt why Pelosi and her progressive Democratic allies were pushing for and won the vote now: it will be more difficult to pass such legislation after the mid-term correction.
Political Cartoon
Ken Cataalino satirizes Obama's take on Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus"...
It is the highest form of self-respect to admit mistakes and to make amends for them.
John J. McCloy
Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100 (continued)
#49. "Make 'Em Laugh"
#50. "Rock Around the Clock"
#51. "Fame"
#52. "Summertime"
