Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (81626)	6/20/2010 7:35:54 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

re And Exxon and BP are pigs! ................................... 'a picture is worth ............ ..................................' courierpress.com Raymond, who retired in December, was compensated more than $686 million from 1993 to 2005, according to an analysis done for The New York Times by Brian Foley, an independent compensation consultant. That is $144,573 for each day he spent leading Exxon's "God pod," as the executive suite at the company's headquarters in Irving, Tex., is known.

To: koan who wrote (81626)	6/20/2010 12:08:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

You say I am a Monday night quarterback. Are you incapable of taking in information. Every night, every night (7 days a week), I wrote a memorandum to the commissioner and governors office and outlined what I saw; and what was going on. A friend of mine in the governors office said they read my oil spill memo, first every day. Because I was one of the few who told them what the fuck was going on and was not afraid of Exxon. And Exxon and BP are pigs! Fine. You're the expert and whatever you say goes. Fortunately, you did every thing perfectly after the Valdez spill and no one can criticize. Kudos.

To: koan who wrote (81626)	6/20/2010 12:16:53 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 89467

looks like you did a terrible job. The first cleanup response was through the use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial explosion was also conducted during the early stages of the spill to burn the oil, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by another explosion. The test was relatively successful, reducing 113,400 litres of oil to 1,134 litres of removable residue,[14] but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted. Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the equipment.[7] Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.[15] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment. Clean-up efforts after the Exxon Valdez oil spill Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, less than ten percent of the oil was recovered[16] and a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal; 98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.[17]

To: koan who wrote (81626)	6/20/2010 12:45:09 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 89467

I think Kelso was the guy in charge

To: koan who wrote (81626)	6/20/2010 1:25:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Keith Olbermann leaves Daily Kos Keith Olbermann announced Wednesday night that he will cease blogging on the liberal Daily Kos over a comment directed at the MSNBC host’s coverage. Olbermann and some of his MSNBC colleagues surprised their left-leaning fans on Tuesday with eviscerating critiques of President Barack Obama’s Oval Office address on the oil spill spewing off the Gulf Coast. “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days,” Olbermann said of the president’s remarks, echoing similarly negative comments from fellow MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. One commenter on the Daily Kos, where Olbermann has maintained a diary over the years, speculated that the pattern of hosts generally sympathetic to the president bashing the administration was too consistent to be a coincidence. “Can’t verify, of course,” the commenter began, “but a friend in the news biz tells me he got a damaging e-mail from one of his pals at NBC. Something to the effect that their anger was pre-planned because ‘beating up on the president has been good for ratings.’ I haven't checked, but I'm hearing that Olbermann slammed the speech on Twitter before it even started.” Olbermann, incensed by the commenter, later fired off a posted titled “Check, Please” explaining that he won’t be “back” to the site until it stops delving into “conspiracy theories.” “‘Can't verify’... ‘haven't checked’...It can't be verified because it's nonsense, and it wasn't checked because nobody bothered,” Olbermann said before launching into a critique of the blog. “For years, from the Katrina days onward, whenever I stuck my neck out, I usually visited here as the clichéd guy in the desert stopping by the oasis,” he wrote. “I never got universal support, and never expected it, nor wanted it (who wants an automatic ‘Yes’ machine?). But I used to read a lot about how people here would 'always have my back,' and trust me this was of palpable value as I fought opponents external and internal who try to knock me and Rachel off the air, all the time, in ways you can imagine and others you can't.” Olbermann went on to say that he understood if some of his viewers were frustrated to see him criticizing the president but that he would not stand for being accused of doing so just to boost ratings. “To accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here,” the liberal host wrote. “You want cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills. You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I'll be back.” Read more: politico.com