Drill, Baby, Drill

The Oil Spill has been called Obama's Katrina, and I've already touched on why that is and isn't a valid argument.  Who gets blame and how this potentially hurts Obama has been the big theme of the spill, but what conservatives need to be worried about is how this is killing "Drill, Baby, Drill.".  A year ago the argument was a winner, hands down.  Only the Greens and rabid leftists opposed it.  A few weeks into the oil spill, however, and we're below water.

Does anyone else find that ridiculous?  There are several large reasons for why this was a preventable disaster.

A good place to start would be with the location of the leak.  As Charles Krauthammer asks, why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water?

Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production.

And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We shouldn't be drilling in such deep waters to begin with, but because environmentalists are doing what they do, we end up drilling in places that just aren't safe.  The picture below does a fantastic job of showing just how much of the US coast is unavailable for drilling.

On this same note we have to wonder why we're drilling at depths that prevent us from plugging the leak.  Wouldn't it of made sense to open up shallower waters elsewhere, and ban drilling at certain depths until we have the means to quickly and efficiently stop leaks?  Call me crazy but it seems far more harmful to the environment to stop safe drilling, but allow the more risky drilling, especially when your "efficient method" to stopping the leak is dumping mud on it.

Which brings me to the next point:  Regulation.

The idea of a conservative talking about regulating is something may seem hypocritical, so before we continue I want to point out that (most) conservatives don't advocate removing all regulations.  We simply believe that there is too much regulation in some areas, and that too much regulation strangles economies.  But some regulations are just common sense, and some limited government oversight can be a good thing.  Safety regulations for things like explosions or blowout leaks are generally things that fall into that good category.  The problem isn't that those regulations aren't in place - they are -the problem is that BP was exempt from those rules:

Petrochemical giant BP didn't file a plan to specifically handle a major oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project because the federal agency that regulates offshore rigs changed its rules two years ago to exempt certain projects in the central Gulf region, according to an Associated Press review of official records.

The Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department known for its cozy relationship with major oil companies, says it issued the rule relief because some of the industrywide mandates weren't practical for all of the exploratory and production projects operating in the Gulf region.

The blowout rule, the fact that it was lifted in April 2008 for rigs that didn't fit at least one of five conditions, and confusion about whether the BP Deepwater Horizon project was covered by the regulation, caught the attention of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The Deep Horizon was an expensive rig, and the article says it was the "most advanced in the world.".  So do alarms go for anyone else when a supposedly super advanced rig has the worst possible scenario possible after every single safety feature fails, and after it's been granted exemption from regulations intended to prevent that disaster?  Somebody was cutting corners here, and someone else failed to find out that said corners were missing.  This wasn't a disaster and warning against offshore drilling, this was a disaster and warning against corruption and stupidity.

At the end of the day I just never understood the Oil Spill = Offshore Drilling is Bad reaction.  Yes, I'm fully aware of what's happening and what it will do to people's livelihoods as well as the environment.  I understand the devastation and the threat, but I also recognize that this disaster was entirely preventable, and that the benefits of offshore drilling outweigh the costs.  There will always be problems and complications when you're doing something, regardless of how positive that thing is.  This shouldn't deter us from doing that.

Besides what is the alternative, exactly?  Do people actually think this helps?  We can stop offshore drilling and purchase our oil from other countries, but how do you think Brazil, Mexico, and other nations get their oil?  Do you think their safety regulations come close to ours?  If offshore drilling is so dangerous that we risk completely destroying the oceans and ourselves with it, does it matter who does it?  Or is it only American oil rigs that explode, despite our higher safety standards?

The Deepwater Horizon was a terrible thing, but we shouldn't create another terrible scenario by attacking drilling in America.  Before we all start getting hysterical we need to take a step back and look at this for what it really was - a preventable disaster caused by a mixture of corruption and greed - and remind ourselves that we have the power to make offshore drilling safe, where other nations won't.  We also have to remind ourselves that the planet is a durable thing, and with our help it will recover.

The Flotilla Event is just Common Sense

Imagine that you're in a helicopter, hovering over the deck of a ship with a crowd of people waiting below you.  You've been ordered to seize control of, and redirect a flotilla of "aid ships" to a friendly port, and so far the operation has gone smoothly.  But right now you're watching as a crowd of "peace activists" beat your comrades with poles, pipes, chairs, knives, and anything else they can get their hands on, and the only thing you're allowed to fight back with are paintball guns, which do nothing to stop the determined attackers..  You've each been given handguns in case you ever find yourself in life threatening situations, but the order for lethal force hasn't been given and below you can hear your allies on the deck yelling "don't shoot!". 

By now some men have been thrown onto lower decks, and others have jumped into the water to escape the beatings.  Help is coming, but struggling to get aboard, and in the meantime you're outnumbered and unprepared to handle this situation.  You can see weapons being pulled away from some soldiers, and one soldier who was thrown over onto a lower deck isn't moving.  Things are rapidly getting out hand, and if the activists decide to start dragging men away this could turn into a hostage situation.

And now it's your turn to slide down to the deck of the ship.


The scenario above is just a rough example of what happened when IDF commandos tried to seize control of a ship bound for the terrorist controlled Gaza strip.  If given all the information common sense would tell us that the IDF soldiers were defending themselves.  But common sense seems to be something the entire world is short on, especially Turkey:

A day after leading the move to condemn Israel at the United Nations Security Council, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was expected to meet with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday evening in Washington.

During a press conference ahead of the meeting, Davitoglu said he was disappointed with Washington's cautious response to an incident he likened to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

"Psychologically this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey because Turkish citizens were attacked by a state, not by terrorists, with an intention, a clear decision of political leaders of that state," he said.

Attempting to run a blockade organized by a group recognized as a terrorist organization, manned by armed thugs, and trying to deliver supplies directly to a terrorist state is the equivalent of sudden, unprovoked attack that left 3,000 dead, the vast majority of which were civilians.  Ignoring the irony in comparing a terrorist attack to an attempt  to supply terrorists, I think what the Foreign Minister intended to say is that the people of Turkey wanted this to be their 9/11, not that it actually was.  Ideological struggles need support, and what better way to get it then to make your enemy look like a cold blooded killer? 

To be fair there wasn't any way the "activists" were actually trying to run the blockade.  They had to of known that there wasn't any way they were going to get through that blockade, so instead they put some armed fanatics on board who cause an international incident for which, of course, Israel gets blamed.  Mission accomplished:

There have been strong reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid of 31 May 2010, both in Israel and in the Palestinian territories, as well as internationally. Official responses have varied from deep concern over the loss of life to strong condemnations. In a carefully worded statement, Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon condemned the violence, called for "a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place" and urged Israel to "provide a full explanation." Many countries called for an international investigation. Unofficial responses included civilian protests against Israeli action following reports of the deaths aboard the MV Mavi Marmara.

Twenty European countries condemned or protested Israeli actions: Albania, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Israel was widely condemned in the Arab world.
Eleven Asian countries condemned Israeli actions: China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, North Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Twelve South American countries condemned Israeli actions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua (which also suspended diplomatic relations with Israel in protest), Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.

Nineteen countries expressed regret over loss of life: Israel, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Canada, Czech Republic, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, the Holy See, India, Ireland, Japan, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

So far only the Netherlands has expressed support for Israel.

 I won't attempt to make this a Conservative vs Liberal argument because one of the first people to ask my opinion and then agree with me on this issue was a very liberal friend of mine.  I like to view this more as a common sense argument.  The men on these ships were armed, and attacked the IDF soldiers.  They were there to cause trouble knowing full well that Israel won't look good in a "Israeli soldiers kill peace activists trying to deliver supplies to poverty stricken Gaza strip." news article.

Of course that begs the question of why the media hasn't gotten around to asking the very obvious question of why "peace activists" and "humanitarians" were armed and so eager to assault IDF soldiers  If the IDF intended to massacre these people and went in guns blazing there wouldn't of been a struggle.  There wouldn't of been any injured IDF soldiers, let alone the ten that were.  There would of been a whole lot of dead activists and a whole lot of justifiable anger at Israel over a massacre.  In fact if the media were doing its job there would of been a lot more questions, like "How did an IDF soldier get shot?"  "Why were some IDF soldiers stabbed?"  "How did this soldier get such a serious head wound?"


There also wouldn't of been videos like these:








The videos don't show the IDF going in using lethal force, in fact the first video clearly shows several paintball guns near the end.  What the videos do show is soldiers being attacked and beaten with a variety of weapons the second they touch the deck.  The beatings themselves bring us back to Common Sense.  At several points we see IDF soldiers go down  and being surrounded by multiple people who proceed to beat them with pipes.  Common Sense should immediately kick in and tell us that these people are in serious danger, and if these beatings continue they may very well die.  And of course the logical response to that should be:  "Defend yourself at all costs."  Which brings us right back to the question of why there is any outrage at all over this event.  It seems to me that world leaders could of spent 10 minutes on youtube and walked away with the bare minimum impression that this wasn't entirely Israel's fault as Turkey wants us to believe.

Oh and in case you needed any more proof that these people were fanatics and not peace activists, watch this last short video filmed before the flotilla met IDF soldiers:





Edit:  Because I just have to remind you that Ron Paul and Common Sense aren't two things that go together.  Odd that the guy who wants to not get involved is so quick to get involved when it's Israel.