Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 04/30/2010 View Thu 04/29/2010 View Wed 04/28/2010 View Tue 04/27/2010 View Mon 04/26/2010 View Sun 04/25/2010 View Sat 04/24/2010
1
2010-04-30 Home Front: Politix
Obama To Send Inspection Teams to Oil Rigs -- UPDATED
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Shoting Unelet2578 2010-04-30 09:13|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ]  Top

#1 I have family and friends working those rigs both on the rig and in Management. They said the feds have been very slow answering calls for support in helping during thid disaster. If Obama's response is SWAT teams going after my people...th Junior Senator from Chicago will have f#cked up big time.
Posted by Tex 2010-04-30 11:16||   2010-04-30 11:16|| Front Page Top

#2 This makes no sense to me. Are they suggesting that someone sabotaged the rig and might do more? That is the only scenerio I can picture where SWAT would be relevant and if that is the case the NAVY would be better.
Posted by rjschwarz 2010-04-30 11:22||   2010-04-30 11:22|| Front Page Top

#3 SWAT Team - Not the cops. A focused group brought together to identify/solve a problem or process deficiency.
Posted by ed 2010-04-30 11:28||   2010-04-30 11:28|| Front Page Top

#4 From what I've read, random explosions just don't happen and those in the field suspect sabotage, perhaps the eco-terrorist type, as no new drilling is the result. This rig is about 60 miles out, beyond the 12-mile territorial boundary but within the 200 mile economic zone. It was anchored to the seabed about a mile down, where I believe the original break was located, making it too deep for a diver to plant explosives. That's assuming the info is accurate, which is doubtful when talking oil companies and the gov't. However, a sub or even a mini-sub aboard a larger ship could do it, I'ma guessing. The extensive economic and environmental damage for years to come could make this way beyond the Valdez, giving many the motive to do such a thing. Didn't Chavez just purchase some Russian subs?
Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2010-04-30 11:47||   2010-04-30 11:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Hezbollah also has subs. I had another thought--this rig is owned by BP. I don't know it this is still true, but the Brits predominately had oil leases in Iraq/Kuwait while the US did bizness with the Soddy's going back to last century. Is this modern BP a joint US/Brit venture but also profiting from the new Iraq? Would someone want top destroy our domestic production bad enough to take down some major off-shore wells?
Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2010-04-30 12:14||   2010-04-30 12:14|| Front Page Top

#6 The US Interior Department said it had assembled a “swat team” of inspectors to review safety at offshore drilling rigs across the US.
So it’s a metaphorical SWAT team, not a real one.
Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-04-30 12:27||   2010-04-30 12:27|| Front Page Top

#7 Uh, the rig is not a BP rig. It was a Transocean rig that was being leased by BP. There's a big difference; the personnell on the rig were mainly Transocean and other contractors.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-04-30 13:33||   2010-04-30 13:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Haliburton to be blamed and Cheney put on trial.
Posted by bman 2010-04-30 15:18||   2010-04-30 15:18|| Front Page Top

#9 If terrorists are involved then why would Bammo send SWAT? Bammo *likes* terrorists...
Posted by Iblis 2010-04-30 15:30||   2010-04-30 15:30|| Front Page Top

#10 I know the leaking oil will probably damage the coast, and that's not good, but it would be nice if these idiots paused to occasionally comment that PEOPLE DIED, and as bad as the pollution will be, that's worse.

Or maybe the people (including Bambi, et al.) would like to arrange for someone in their family to die in the place of the oil rig workers?
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-30 15:51||   2010-04-30 15:51|| Front Page Top

#11 #8 Haliburton to be blamed; Bush and Cheney put on trial.
Posted by: bman 2010-04-30 15:18

FIFY
Posted by WolfDog 2010-04-30 16:13||   2010-04-30 16:13|| Front Page Top

#12 So, I normally would not comment here but this is too much! S.W.A.T./S.W.O.T. = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities/Abilities, and Threats. Not a police Special Weapons and Tactics team. I realize that every citizen is entitled to their own political opinions but seriously...engaging in any political conversation/debate without having any factual knowledge or having done any resaech leads to comments such as the above, which are obviously ignorant and uneducated. Making such statements really only ensuresthat you will not be taken seriously by anyone and laughed at by almost everyone (except your peers in this very sad group). It makes me sad that the American electorate has devolved from a once proud and knowledgeable society into a group of sheeple that listen to the talking heads and overly biased (for either party) news media and believe all of the bulls*%t that you are spoon fed everyday. Please for the sake of the greatest nation in the world, pull your head out of your a**es, do some research, get some facts, and realize that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are equally deplorable and that it is this type of ingnorance that has allowed them start this country circling the drain. If you do not believe this then please check the facts on how many jobs this country lost in the last quarter of the Bush addministration's term. I am not defending Obama by any means (nor would I ever), I am simply pointing out that it is our fault that this country is in the state that it is in. It has been our complacency and sheer laziness that have allowed the people in power to F**k it up for us all, and all anyone wants to do is blame someone else. If we really want to save this nation, perhaps it might be instructive to look at ourselves before we start to point fingers at the people that WE put in power. Just a little food for though...for those of you who actually can still think....
Posted by Embarrased for the uneducated 2010-04-30 16:35||   2010-04-30 16:35|| Front Page Top

#13 ...has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs.

Maybe Obama heard that the Cambridge PD was down there.
Posted by Secret Master 2010-04-30 16:44||   2010-04-30 16:44|| Front Page Top

#14 #13 ...has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs.

Maybe Obama heard that the Cambridge PD was down there.

I rest my case...
Posted by Embarrased for the uneducated 2010-04-30 17:02||   2010-04-30 17:02|| Front Page Top

#15 for those of you who actually can still think....

I guess one of the crosses rantburg has to bear for "punching above its weight" is the condescendingness of the terminally overeducated/clueless.

I rest my case...
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 17:11|| http://www.freefirezone.org  2010-04-30 17:11|| Front Page Top

#16 SWAT Team - Not the cops. A focused group brought together to identify/solve a problem or process deficiency.

That's nice. What's these SWAT team guys' background in the actual field?
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-04-30 17:20||   2010-04-30 17:20|| Front Page Top

#17 Just ingnore him.
Posted by KBK 2010-04-30 17:47||   2010-04-30 17:47|| Front Page Top

#18 
Posted by Shoting Unelet2578 2010-04-30 18:03||   2010-04-30 18:03|| Front Page Top

#19 Shoting has been posting here for a long time. Like he said, this is top center of www.DrudgeReport.com. Why did you just ban him? We have an out of control moderator!
Posted by Tex 2010-04-30 18:14||   2010-04-30 18:14|| Front Page Top

#20 I would harldy call an O.I.F. vet who is WORKING on his Bachelors "overeducated/clueless". But as I said, perhaps I was to harsh on the original post. However, while it may not have been civil, it was well reasoned. I am not trying to be overly offensive. I am simply saying that it is not usefull to comment "off the cuff" without having any real facts to back it up. In the case of this article, a simple google search would have shown that the article clearly was not talking about police. I do not promote any one side over the other, only that people make the effort to find out for themselves...why is that too much to ask?
Posted by Embarrased for the Uneducated 2010-04-30 18:20||   2010-04-30 18:20|| Front Page Top

#21 The headline and text was misleading.

If Shoting, or anyone, is going to post material here, they have to know what is and isn't misleading. Especially if he has posted material here before.

The headline as well as the text of the story were misleading. If he had posted material here before, he should have known better, and if he didn't he should have made some other remark in response to the modifications I made.

Shoting is not banned.

I will forward your complaint to the other mods and they can deal with me.
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 18:26||   2010-04-30 18:26|| Front Page Top

#22 So, I normally would not comment here but this is too much! S.W.A.T./S.W.O.T. = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities/Abilities, and Threats. Not a police Special Weapons and Tactics team.

Thank you for that information, Mr. Embarrased for the uneducated. Do you have a link for your information, or are you perhaps speaking from personal expertise? It would help us to judge the validity of your claim, separate from the long-winded insults. The thing is, one of Rantburg's oil professionals -- of which there are quite a few for some reason -- is likely to weigh in on this thread at some point, and you're going to look awfully silly if you're making this up out of whole cloth... and unnecessarily rude if you're right.

Neither is the position in which an intelligent person deliberately places himself.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-30 18:27||   2010-04-30 18:27|| Front Page Top

#23 Shoting posted the exact title of the article as written in the link. I believe the moderator owes Shoting an apology.
Posted by ed 2010-04-30 18:28||   2010-04-30 18:28|| Front Page Top

#24 Again, my original post was overly harsh, I believe I said that. But, as you asked....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis. If wikipedia is not good, then perhaps, http://www.marketingteacher.com/Lessons/lesson_swot.htm.
Posted by Embarrased for the Uneducated 2010-04-30 18:31||   2010-04-30 18:31|| Front Page Top

#25 I do not promote any one side over the other, only that people make the effort to find out for themselves...why is that too much to ask?

Many regulars and other here do not have the time to do research the poster or the writers of the material should have done. If you are going to post material, you should also so some research of your own before submitting.

Not too much to ask. I've done it.

The poster is at fault here, as is the writer who failed to clarify the news reported.

That is why the post was deemed misleading and modified.

I would harldy call an O.I.F. vet who is WORKING on his Bachelors "overeducated/clueless".

Then maybe you should turn off the condescending remarks and switch on your mind. You may well learn something.
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 18:32||   2010-04-30 18:32|| Front Page Top

#26 TW, SWAT/SWOT is a cross industry term. It defines an expert team formed/brought in to solve or identify a problem, most often to pick up the pieces after a monumental screw up. One of the more famous recent examples was the team formed to reduce the weight of the F-35 fighter aircraft.
Posted by ed 2010-04-30 18:34||   2010-04-30 18:34|| Front Page Top

#27 Thanks for the diligence, just nine hours after the original post.

Way to go!
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 18:38||   2010-04-30 18:38|| Front Page Top

#28 #25 You are right. As I said, the post was too harsh. For that I apologize. However, I read the original article and I did not think it was a police SWAT team. I will even admit that I had to look it up to know for sure what it was talking about, however that process took less time than one of these posts. In the fiture I will moderate my language but I can assure you that my mind is fully switched on and that I would not have posted if I did not want a response. My whole goal IS to learn something. Again, for my harsh words I do appologize, but for the point I was making, I certainly do not.
Posted by Embarrased for the Uneducated 2010-04-30 18:39||   2010-04-30 18:39|| Front Page Top

#29 TW, SWAT/SWOT is a cross industry term.

Thank you, ed. That is useful information. This is why one should always define an acronym upon first use. I think we've all learnt a useful lesson here. Hopefully someone will share it with the reporters who screwed up the story. Also, most tactfully, with President Obama; it is not clear from this or other stories on the subject exactly what he thinks he is sending out there.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-30 18:47||   2010-04-30 18:47|| Front Page Top

#30 Mr./Ms. "Embarrassed" - might I suggest you change your nym?

It's tacky and condescending.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-30 18:48||   2010-04-30 18:48|| Front Page Top

#31 In response to #15 – “terminally overeducated/clueless”
Maybe you can explain to me why being overeducated makes an individual clueless. Please understand that education and experience are not mutually exclusive. One may have both. In fact, I would wager to say that an over-educated and/or over-experienced individual should be LESS clueless than the rest of the minimally/average-educated or experienced ones.
That being said, I don’t see how #12’s (Embarrassed for the uneducated) thread leads anyone to believe that this person is over-educated. He/she, in a condescending manner, are telling (collective) you to research and analyze the situation before forming an opinion. I don’t think that has anything to do with education, or rather “over” education; it should be common sense. There are very few un-/minimally biased news or blog sites in existence. I agree with #12 in his/her assessment that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS (not just Americans) to attain the most objective information available in order to form a true and honest opinion. Unfortunately news outlets such as MSNBC, FOX News, or news reporters/commentators such as Bill Mahr or Glenn Beck make it very easy to ingest highly discriminatory accounts of current events and trends.
It is easy to be ignorant and naïve. It is not easy to be smart and think analytically…..something that education and experience lend credence to daily. In my opinion, “clueless” individuals reside more clearly in the realm of laziness where it is easier to borrow ideas rather than form them yourself. If you are guilty of such actions, as I am at times…..for shame.
A quote sent to me by a friend (I will research and find the original speaker and repost when available): "It is the job of every American, as citizen, to take a personal interest his/her government and an active role in the events that shape that government. It is their duty to know the issues, seek out the truth, and act accordingly. Any less effort allows for corruption, in politics, the media, and eventually the community. Such an erosion would see the end to this 231 year experiment in Democracy, and that end will be ushered in on the shoulders of the politically complacent."
Posted by Seek_out_the_truth 2010-04-30 18:48||   2010-04-30 18:48|| Front Page Top

#32 It is not easy to be smart and think analytically.....something that education and experience lend credence to daily. In my opinion, "clueless" individuals reside more clearly in the realm of laziness where it is easier to borrow ideas rather than form them yourself. If you are guilty of such actions, as I am at times.....for shame.

Thanks for making my arguments for me.

A clueless individual posted a misleading headline. I pointed it out since a number of very intelligent people here were mislead not only by the headline but by the very text of the story that was linked to.

A warning was issued not to do it again. An improper response, and then a response from me.

Why is it everyone's responsibility and not the person who posted the garbage?

If government people using spokemen/women used esoteric terms meant primarily for government people in their daily routines, why is that a failing of everyone BUT the reporter and the government employee? And the person who posted the original story as well as the person who posted the link?

People don't live for their government. They have better things to do, like getting government smaller and less of the lethargic slug that it is now, and off their back.

Sending a response team to an oil rig that is insured for several millions? Don't you think the insurance company, which will have to pay out millions of dollars, will want answers? Why do we need government weenies who insist we know their most obscure terms to do this work? It's duplication of effort.

It seems to me you have everything backwards.
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 19:04||   2010-04-30 19:04|| Front Page Top

#33 
Moderator follow-up:

Shoting: as Badanov mentioned, both the title and the post were misleading. As a regular, providing some context is important. While the title in the original was the same, you could have told us what this SWAT team was.

You are not banned (as Badanov also mentioned) but please don't do this again.

Embarrased for the Uneducated: apparently you're new here, as I don't recognize the IP. You might wish to read for a while prior to lecturing. Rantburg has a habit of handing condescending people their hind ends in a debate.

Also understand that the other standard definition of 'SWAT' makes for good snark. At Rantburg, we love good snark.

Barbara also suggests a nym change. Good advice.

Ed: thanks for the quick definition. That's what we needed in the original post.

Thanks for your attention.

AoS (moderator)
Posted by Steve White 2010-04-30 19:04||   2010-04-30 19:04|| Front Page Top

#34 What the hell is "over-educated"? I want all the education I can get, from all sides.
Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-04-30 19:09||   2010-04-30 19:09|| Front Page Top

#35 Deacon, I would define "overeducated" as a lot of book-learning, but not much sense.

Also "too smart for his/her own good."

YMMV. ;-p
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-30 19:17||   2010-04-30 19:17|| Front Page Top

#36 Overeducated: trained beyond mental ability. To overload the student's mind with facts beyond his ability to understand and manipulate, while leading him to think that this constitutes intelligence and ability. Entirely too many Harvard MBAs, for instance, are overeducated, and when they find themselves actually running an actual business mess things up badly. Or reporters, proudly waving their expensive master's degree from the Columbia School of Journalism, taught to be proud of approaching the story with an empty mind, which they fondly believe means they are free of preconceptions instead of ignorant of what questions to ask or capable of understanding the import of the answers.

As an aside, I continue to be surprised that the accusation against George W. Bush was that he was stupid rather than overeducated, since Harvard has always required a minimum of ability to be accepted into its graduate schools, even of legacies. Now-Senator John F. Kerry was not accepted into Harvard Law, for instance, a damning bit of information if ever there was. Not that I think President Bush was overeducated -- his faults lie elsewhere.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-30 19:31||   2010-04-30 19:31|| Front Page Top

#37 Fur thems bitter edumacated then I, try paragraphs. They help organize your argument around a single idea at a time and make them easier to read.

Try it; you'll like it.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-04-30 19:33||   2010-04-30 19:33|| Front Page Top

#38 Over Educated might also be someone who pisses away $80K for a degree that makes him less money than the job he left in the first place.

Sometimes I wonder.....
Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-04-30 19:34||   2010-04-30 19:34|| Front Page Top

#39 To all (Moderator Included), at the risk of being banned, I have been reading Rantburg for the better part of two years, I don't post often and not sure that I ever have from this computer. Understandably, the reaction to my post was negative. I have apologized. However I am truly waiting for someone to hand me my "hind end" in this debate. As I said earlier, I posted with the intention of a response so that I could "learn something." To Badanov, you are correct it is the responsibility of the poster and the reporter to be more clear in their terms. That said, however, when they do not (as is SO often the case) it is our responsiblity to seek the facts. The reason I commented here is because so often both on and off of this site I see this kind of knee-jerk reaction (See post #1) to bad information and it bothers me that people are not willing to open a new tab on their browser and run an internet search. What good is the information age if we are not seeking information? True, people do not live for their government but that does not mean that they don't have a duty to account for the actions of that government, something that I feel is impossible without unbiased, factual information. Something that I do not see being offered by any of the major news media on a regular basis. If you want to get the lethargic slug that is our government of your back (as I totally agree with you assessment), do so by attacking the lies from both parties. They are numerous. If it truly is our goal to reign in this monster that WE have created then by all means the first step is to know what we are fighting. I find that debate with others is the best way for us all to learn. As I have said, numerous times now, my original post was offensive and uncalled for. But please understand my frustration. So often I see people paying lip service to this idea but taking no action. It just simply triggered an emotional response. With that in mind, feel free to attack me further, however I stand by the point I was making before, when all else fails it is our job to find the truth. Anything less, in my opinion, defeats the very purpose that our founders had when they instituted this "231 year experiment in demoncracy." A government for the people, BY the people.
Posted by RWM from Texas 2010-04-30 19:43||   2010-04-30 19:43|| Front Page Top

#40 However I am truly waiting for someone to hand me my "hind end" in this debate.

You could learn how to use paragraphs also. We used to call it the carriage return. Now they often label a key Enter.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-04-30 19:49||   2010-04-30 19:49|| Front Page Top

#41 All good points.

What good is the information age if we are not seeking information?

True. The only good information is the truth

However, agenda is not information, so not knowing an obscure federal bureaucratic term may or may not be much of an excuse but then neither is using the term without fully explaining it if it conflisct with other similar terms.

Making the crappy excuse I must know what they mean by SWAT is agenda. You can't deny it, so don't even try.

If you want to get the lethargic slug that is our government of your back (as I totally agree with you assessment), do so by attacking the lies from both parties.

Why do that? Isn't it better to remove the locus of power used by both parties: a bloated and overbearing federal government?

And how does knowing a bureaucratic term for something everyone knows clearly used in this context to befuddle people advance that goal?

It doesn't and I suspect those who defended the posting of this article know it well.

Why get into a pissing match with someone who wants power if they do not agree to relinquish that power for the common good?

If they do agree, let's start with STOP USING ESOTERIC TERMS or SUET for short.
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 20:11|| http://www.freefirezone.org  2010-04-30 20:11|| Front Page Top

#42 Not only that, Bad Man... why should we be concentrating equally on both parties when one party is definitely much more of a problem than the other?
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-04-30 20:17||   2010-04-30 20:17|| Front Page Top

#43 RWM from Texas, comment more often. I love a well-reasoned debate as do most here.
Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-04-30 20:20||   2010-04-30 20:20|| Front Page Top

#44 RWM from Texas, I appreciate your last comment as much as I did not appreciate your first. I imagine as a result you will comment more effectively in the future. The goal it not "handing ass" but conveying and receiving useful information. And good snark, of course.

I remember the first time the future Mr. Wife came over for dinner with my family. He was studying chemical engineering after several years doing cancer research (one of those programs for bright high school/college kids), and Daddy was a biochemist, a research professor at the same institute. Naturally, they used the same technical vocabulary; what both managed not to notice, intelligent and clever as they both were, was that their related fields used the vocabulary slightly differently. They spent a good portion of the evening becoming politely but increasingly frustrated, each not understanding why the other didn't see his point, given his obvious intelligence and knowledge. And thus I learnt that when a term has more than one meaning, this may not be immediately obvious. It's not fair to blame someone who didn't even realize there was a question that needed to be asked. Ed tried in his #3 post, but that wasn't enough -- his #26 nailed it home. (Well done, ed!)

As far as I can see, everyone posting in this thread meant well, and we can all work on communicating more effectively when we aren't snarking -- that skill is demonstratively mastered here at Rantburg!
Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-30 20:24||   2010-04-30 20:24|| Front Page Top

#45 Agreed. I am willing to admit that the context for my argument is not well founded in the SWAT/SWOT debate. As I said, the original post was an emotional reaction, a knee-jerk one to bad information. I am as guilty as the people I just bashed. My question then, to you is, how do we reduce the size of the "bloated and overbearing" federal government?

I am not defending this post. I agree that the use of such terms is a source of confusion. However, as it has never been the habit of those in power to relinquish it, for any reason, I do not see them helping us fight this battle by changing their vocabulary.

That is why I say it falls to us to uncover the truth for ourselves, if for no other reason than the peice of mind one gets from knowing, for sure, that they are right in their line of thinking.
Posted by RWM from Texas 2010-04-30 20:28||   2010-04-30 20:28|| Front Page Top

#46 That is why I say it falls to us to uncover the truth for ourselves, if for no other reason than the peice of mind one gets from knowing, for sure, that they are right in their line of thinking.

It's RWM from Texas FTW...

Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 20:55|| http://www.freefirezone.org  2010-04-30 20:55|| Front Page Top

#47 coming VERY late to this thread: RWM has had previous posts that I found well thought out. Stick to one nym, guys. Expect Frank G to be "mostly snark, infrequently enlightening and overwhelmingly frustrating"*

*taken from my Divorce papers
Posted by Frank G 2010-04-30 21:18||   2010-04-30 21:18|| Front Page Top

#48 Dang, FrankG. I'm jealous.

Mine said "tied up the bonds of matrimony" and "Gordian knot", something like that.

Who can remember...
Posted by badanov 2010-04-30 21:26||   2010-04-30 21:26|| Front Page Top

#49 FWIW

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm
Posted by Iblis 2010-04-30 22:16||   2010-04-30 22:16|| Front Page Top

#50 Let's define "over-educated" so everyone can understand it - Barrack Hussein Obama. The man's supposedly a lawyer and a "Constitutional specialist". If it's not the BS of "community organizing", it's over his head. The last 15 months have proven that beyond a doubt.
Posted by Old Patriot 2010-04-30 23:12||   2010-04-30 23:12|| Front Page Top

00:03 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:20 gorb
23:12 Old Patriot
23:10 trailing wife
23:10 Charles
23:00 newc
22:16 Iblis
22:00  abu do you love
21:49 Redneck Jim
21:48 tu3031
21:45 Redneck Jim
21:42 Redneck Jim
21:38 Redneck Jim
21:38 Obama
21:32 Besoeker
21:27 Besoeker
21:26 badanov
21:22 Frank G
21:22 DarthVader
21:18 Frank G
21:15 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com