Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Friday, June 14, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Why the United States still can't get BP to do what's necessary If Obama asserts no legal authority over BP, he can't cleanup the oil giant's cleanup BY ROBERT REICH
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/06/13/reich_us_bp/index.html
Make It Into American Petroleum
Pres. Obama needs to forget his conflicts over the mistreatment of his grandfather by the Brits and recognize that as president he must serve and protect the people of the U.S. even though he might be criticized, and bite the bullet and seize BP's assets and arrest its management under terrorism laws and get it over with. So what if Britain fumes, if they don't like it let's go to war, and after we win we can divest them of more assets to pay for that as well as the horrendous longterm damage their terrorist corp. did to us. The alternative of treating them as a legit corp who's our friend and can be trusted to hand us all its assets is dumber than check-into-cash.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
U.S. Says No, but Nuclear Option for Spill Gains Support
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html
My reply:
Yes, a small nuke to the side of the well should push rocks into it and seal it off, and the heat only would make it work better by getting a molten rock flow going. So why not? If there were ever a use for nukes, this is it- a pure gain, ending the horrific flow of oil and environmental devastation, and since the sea floor is already a mile down, the nuke shouldn't harm anybody or anything. Is Obama so bewitched with his Nobel that he will risk ruining the U.S. coastline for some political purity about nasty nukes? Stay tuned, jeesh.
My reply:
Yes, a small nuke to the side of the well should push rocks into it and seal it off, and the heat only would make it work better by getting a molten rock flow going. So why not? If there were ever a use for nukes, this is it- a pure gain, ending the horrific flow of oil and environmental devastation, and since the sea floor is already a mile down, the nuke shouldn't harm anybody or anything. Is Obama so bewitched with his Nobel that he will risk ruining the U.S. coastline for some political purity about nasty nukes? Stay tuned, jeesh.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)