Some analysts have said that the use of fire booms earlier in the containment process would have averted much of the damage caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
According to the Press-Register of Mobile, Ala., Ron Gouguet, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator, helped craft the 1994 “In-Situ Burn” plan which called for the immediate use of fire booms in case of major oil spills in the Gulf. Gouguet said that the officials responsible had pre-approval to burn off the spill.
“The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away,” Gouguet said.
Gouguet said that burning the leaking oil could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled out of the well, according to the Press-Register.
The first test burn was conducted on April 30, 2010, eight days after the British Petroleum oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank and began leaking oil into the Gulf. No fire booms were immediately available at the time of the spill.
According to the Press-Register, Elastec American Marine, the Illinois based company that provided the fire-boom for the test burn, said it only had one of its patented Fire-Hydro booms in stock when the spill occurred. It was rushed to the spill site along with six other booms which the government borrowed from Brazil.
Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec American Marine, said that if six or seven fire booms had been immediately put into place, the accident could have been contained 100 miles from shore. A single fire-boom can burn up to 1800 barrels of oil an hour, which translates to 75000 gallons an hour
Craig Taffaro, a Louisiana fisherman, has been helping cleanup crews at Breton Sound Marina close off waterways to prevent oil from reaching environmentally fragile inland marshes, according to The Advocate of Baton Rouge, La.
“We don’t have a consistent volume of supplies that we need and we feel like our window is closing,” Taffaro said.
The cost of the oil spill goes beyond the monetary cost of clean up and the cost of the oil lost. Costs also include the financial impact of lost jobs, wildlife lost, and overall damage to the environment.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Proposition 14
Advocates of Proposition 14, which calls for the legalization of marijuana, launched a radio ad campaign Wednesday, only days after the initiative made the ballot.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the pro-legalization ads are saying that the measure is a common sense solution to many of California’s problems, such as the $54 billion in debt the state is facing.
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act would allow adults 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and cultivate 25 square feet for personal consumption, reversing a statewide ban on marijuana use which went into effect in 1913.
Some liken the decriminalization of marijuana for the purposes of taxation to the repeal of prohibition during the Great Depression, sighting that California’s debt is up to about 37 percent of its economic output. According to reports from the New Jersey News Room estimates from the California Board of Equalization reported the state could raise up to $1.4 billion from the legalization of marijuana.
The the establishment of Steep Hill Labs—which the Sacramento Bee reported to be a marijuana testing facility which is used to ensure that marijuana sold for medical purposes is not tainted with toxic molds or pesticides—does, however, demonstrate the possible hazards of the substance.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the pro-legalization ads are saying that the measure is a common sense solution to many of California’s problems, such as the $54 billion in debt the state is facing.
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act would allow adults 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and cultivate 25 square feet for personal consumption, reversing a statewide ban on marijuana use which went into effect in 1913.
Some liken the decriminalization of marijuana for the purposes of taxation to the repeal of prohibition during the Great Depression, sighting that California’s debt is up to about 37 percent of its economic output. According to reports from the New Jersey News Room estimates from the California Board of Equalization reported the state could raise up to $1.4 billion from the legalization of marijuana.
The the establishment of Steep Hill Labs—which the Sacramento Bee reported to be a marijuana testing facility which is used to ensure that marijuana sold for medical purposes is not tainted with toxic molds or pesticides—does, however, demonstrate the possible hazards of the substance.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the United States ’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased three and two-tenths percent in the first quarter of 2010; this was the third straight quarter of US
Since it is a commonly touted maxim that ‘those who don't know history are destined to repeat it’, it would, accordingly, if for no other reason, certainly be a grave mistake not to explore the causes of this economic calamity.
Most economists would agree that the 2008 to 2009 recession was perpetuated by a home loan crisis, brought on by the burst of the ‘housing bubble’ which had come into being in 2004 and 2005 due to low interest rates.
When interest rates rose in 2006, there was a wave of foreclosures which caused heavy losses for banks and hedge funds which had holdings in the ‘secondary mortgage market’ or ‘mortgage backed securities exchange.’ This secondary market was managed—in great part—by the firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Thus it is clear that the firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a somewhat significant role in the economic downturn in that, collectively, the two firms perform most of the repackaging of mortgage backed securities for sale on the secondary market. It would be assumed then, that these two companies, at least, would have benefitted from the transactions leading to the recession even if no others did. But, alas, this is not the case.
By August of 2007 many banks had cut lending in order to cut their losses, leading to the bankruptcy and nationalization of several corporations involved in the secondary market; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and four other companies (Bear Stearns, AIG, Indy Mac Bank, and Washington Mutual) received government bailout packages totaling approximately $700 billion.
Since it is obvious that a corporation would never act in a way that did not benefit its self interest, the situation at hand begs the question: What could have motivated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to adopt policies such that they perpetuated their own demise? That is quintessential to understanding the cause of the recession on the whole.
To answer that question, it must firstly be noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created and authorized to handle the secondary market by the 1968 Charter Act; the intent of this act was to unlock loan funds, normally held by banks, for lending to homebuyers. This governmental imposition on the banking industry, however, in accordance with Adam Smith's contention that there has never been much good done by those who affected to act for the public good, led to an unanticipated, negative effect—the elimination of the need for disciplined lending practices.
Secondly, the further involvement of the government in the corporations through regulations place upon their lending practices must be considered. Through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was established to monitor the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The act subjugated the two corporations to the control of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) secretary and mandated that the two companies make mortgages available to low-income borrowers.
Thus, the government effectively made a break with the free-market, laissez faire system upon which the American economic system, capitalism, is based. The mandates and regulations placed upon these companies directly violate this essential tenet of the capitalistic model.
It is not, however, the role of government to obstruct the industry of the people—which was the effect of such regulations in that they led to the bankruptcies of the companies involved—but to promote industry and the free market through the administration of justice and the building of infrastructure. Thus, the government clearly overstepped its boundaries at the time.
Why then, did the companies not protest?
Why then, did the companies not protest?
In a 2000 press release by the HUD about the increases in federal legislation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending practices, Andrew Mark Cuomo—then Secretary of the HUD—said, “This rule will greatly expand the supply of affordable housing across the country, giving millions of families the opportunity to buy homes or to move into apartments.” The report went on to expound on the need to help low income families and, particularly, to raise the homeownership among under-severed minority Americans. Furthermore, the report stated that if “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail to make a good faith effort to achieve the Affordable Housing Goals set by the HUD… [they would face] penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the failure occurs.” The response, by the people, to this legislation was overwhelmingly positive.
There are no good choices when one faces either cooperation or being demonized and penalized—both paths are seemingly self-destructive.
The government and the many supporters of this move— and previous moves in this direction—did not realize that in trying to help the citizenry, a system was being created which would eventually yield more harm than good. While the end of government is to protect private property and, accordingly, to protect the right to freely exchange said property, it is not the job of the government to provide this property. That is a responsibility the one desiring property has to himself.
The government and the many supporters of this move— and previous moves in this direction—did not realize that in trying to help the citizenry, a system was being created which would eventually yield more harm than good. While the end of government is to protect private property and, accordingly, to protect the right to freely exchange said property, it is not the job of the government to provide this property. That is a responsibility the one desiring property has to himself.
In the end, the effects of government involvement in economic matters shows itself to be detrimental to the wellbeing of all involved in that—through the foreclosures that hit the housing market after the bursting of the housing bubble—low income and minority households were the hardest hit. Thus, it is clear that-- as Ronald Regan once put it-- “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
The essence of the situation was best described by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which issued the following statement:
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070)
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 was passed into law by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Friday, April 23, 2010. The law states that it is a state misdemeanor to illegally reside within the state of Arizona—illegal status being defined as being present within the state without documentation of legal status. According to the law, documentation such as a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid Arizona non-operating identification license, a tribal enrollment card, or any other valid state or federally issued form of identification would function as proof of status.
Arizona has a 389 mile border with Mexico and currently has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Since SB1070 was signed into law one week ago, the opposition has staged several protests throughout the state of Arizona. The opposition claims that the law will give rise to racial profiling and the harassment of legal American citizens of Hispanic descent, some comparing the law to the policies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Many have further suggested that the law is unconstitutional—in violation, specifically, of the 14th amendment.
(Link to Fourteenth Amendment Text)
The New York Times reported Thursday that several major civil rights and legal groups have announced that they plan to take legal actions to block the law.
While the law will most probably be struck down in court, this does not necessarily entail that every facet of this law is erroneous or unethical. In fact, the SB1070 suffers more from a lack of specificity than anything else—not unlike the recently overturned laws about ‘crush videos’.
In the law it is stated that police may ask individuals about their immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” of their being illegal; the definition of reasonable suspicion needs to be tightened in such a way that only those being questioned in regards to their having commit an illegal act should be questioned in regards to their status. This would remove the fear that ‘racial profiling’ could occur as a result of the enactment of this law. No one wants to go about harassing and deporting Esteban Colberto for dancing with his chicas on Colberto Reporto Gigante; that is not the intention of this law.
In Jon Stewart’s portrayal of the law on The Daily Show, Wyatt Cenac is asked for identification while Jason Jones is not even given a second glance, and it is true that this could happen the way the law is currently written; therefore, the wording should be reworked as to avoid such a situation.
It does not matter if one is white, black, brown, or blue like in Avatar: if a person is here illegally they should be deported. That is, Sean Hannity’s friend Sven from Sweden does not get a pass because he has blue eyes and blonde hair.
Other arguments against the SB1070 have also arisen.
Some have said that there are illegal immigrants who are stand-up people, family people just trying to find work and make a living. They believe that such individuals should not get deported just because they get stopped for jaywalking or committing some other, trivial crime. The problem with such an argument, however, is that, by being in this country illegally, they have already commit an illegal act and are not, therefore, stand-up people who deserve such leniencies.
If a legal citizen was driving down the street and happened to run a red light, most any police officer present would pull them over in order to write them a ticket for violating traffic laws. This process would involve the person in question providing the officer with their license and registration. If, in the process of this routine check, the officer was to discover a stash of cocaine in the glove compartment, chances are that the officer would take action against the person for that violation as well.
The same applies with illegal aliens—if an illegal is stopped for committing some sort of crime (however serious or trivial) and thus is revealed to be in the country illegally, there is no reason why they the individual should not face punishment—deportation—for that crime as well.
There are those who would, at this juncture, inquire as to the family of such an illegal immigrant. The answer to such a question would be quite simple.
If the individual’s family is in the country legally, the family can go through the legal process in order to legally bring over the family member in question. If, on the other hand, the individual’s family is also illegal, they would have two options. They could either:
a)Stay in the United States, be separated from their family member, and hope that they too do not get caught and deported at some later point in time, or;
b)Go back to their home country with their family member and all be together outside of US borders, where they rightfully belong.
Lastly, for those who argue that there is no way to get rid of all the Mexicans, and that they are here to stay: bravo.
That is absolutely true. One could never get rid of all of the Mexicans and, as a matter of fact, one is probably a racist if that is what one wants. It is right to get rid of illegal immigrants (from Mexico or otherwise). Any legal citizen, however, deserves to be within US borders, their heritage notwithstanding; anyone who would deny the right of legal citizens to be here is, indeed, in the wrong.
Arizona has a 389 mile border with Mexico and currently has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Since SB1070 was signed into law one week ago, the opposition has staged several protests throughout the state of Arizona. The opposition claims that the law will give rise to racial profiling and the harassment of legal American citizens of Hispanic descent, some comparing the law to the policies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Many have further suggested that the law is unconstitutional—in violation, specifically, of the 14th amendment.
(Link to Fourteenth Amendment Text)
The New York Times reported Thursday that several major civil rights and legal groups have announced that they plan to take legal actions to block the law.
While the law will most probably be struck down in court, this does not necessarily entail that every facet of this law is erroneous or unethical. In fact, the SB1070 suffers more from a lack of specificity than anything else—not unlike the recently overturned laws about ‘crush videos’.
In the law it is stated that police may ask individuals about their immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” of their being illegal; the definition of reasonable suspicion needs to be tightened in such a way that only those being questioned in regards to their having commit an illegal act should be questioned in regards to their status. This would remove the fear that ‘racial profiling’ could occur as a result of the enactment of this law. No one wants to go about harassing and deporting Esteban Colberto for dancing with his chicas on Colberto Reporto Gigante; that is not the intention of this law.
In Jon Stewart’s portrayal of the law on The Daily Show, Wyatt Cenac is asked for identification while Jason Jones is not even given a second glance, and it is true that this could happen the way the law is currently written; therefore, the wording should be reworked as to avoid such a situation.
It does not matter if one is white, black, brown, or blue like in Avatar: if a person is here illegally they should be deported. That is, Sean Hannity’s friend Sven from Sweden does not get a pass because he has blue eyes and blonde hair.
Other arguments against the SB1070 have also arisen.
Some have said that there are illegal immigrants who are stand-up people, family people just trying to find work and make a living. They believe that such individuals should not get deported just because they get stopped for jaywalking or committing some other, trivial crime. The problem with such an argument, however, is that, by being in this country illegally, they have already commit an illegal act and are not, therefore, stand-up people who deserve such leniencies.
If a legal citizen was driving down the street and happened to run a red light, most any police officer present would pull them over in order to write them a ticket for violating traffic laws. This process would involve the person in question providing the officer with their license and registration. If, in the process of this routine check, the officer was to discover a stash of cocaine in the glove compartment, chances are that the officer would take action against the person for that violation as well.
The same applies with illegal aliens—if an illegal is stopped for committing some sort of crime (however serious or trivial) and thus is revealed to be in the country illegally, there is no reason why they the individual should not face punishment—deportation—for that crime as well.
There are those who would, at this juncture, inquire as to the family of such an illegal immigrant. The answer to such a question would be quite simple.
If the individual’s family is in the country legally, the family can go through the legal process in order to legally bring over the family member in question. If, on the other hand, the individual’s family is also illegal, they would have two options. They could either:
a)Stay in the United States, be separated from their family member, and hope that they too do not get caught and deported at some later point in time, or;
b)Go back to their home country with their family member and all be together outside of US borders, where they rightfully belong.
Lastly, for those who argue that there is no way to get rid of all the Mexicans, and that they are here to stay: bravo.
That is absolutely true. One could never get rid of all of the Mexicans and, as a matter of fact, one is probably a racist if that is what one wants. It is right to get rid of illegal immigrants (from Mexico or otherwise). Any legal citizen, however, deserves to be within US borders, their heritage notwithstanding; anyone who would deny the right of legal citizens to be here is, indeed, in the wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)