The Gulf of Mexico is a random name of a random place most people will never care much about. Of the few people that have paid attention to it, even fewer have a good idea of how big it is. That is why this website is amazing.
Check it out. It will force you to realize just how big the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is. You can overlay an outline of the spill right on top of some of the worlds biggest cities to see how small they are by comparison.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
04 May 2010
Everybody Loves Oil
So, currently there is 5,000 barrels of crude oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico a day. I hate to sound like every idiot in the media, but it's fair to call that calamitous. It realistically is a disaster of epic proportions. To give you a point of reference, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989 was approximately 250,000 barrels. This killed 100,000 seabirds, thousands of otters, hundreds of seals, and 22 orcas. It devastated the fishing economy of Cordova, Alaska so severely that many people in the town committed suicide, including the Mayor.
Since British Petroleum (BP) is estimating approximately three months to stop the leak, we are looking at around 500,000 barrels leaked into the Gulf before all this is over and done. Does that seem like a lot to anyone else?
As if all that weren't bad enough, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are dumping thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals, called dispersants, into the Gulf to prevent the oil from reaching shore. I'd like this to be really clear. What they are dumping into the water is not cleaning it up. It is only making it sink to the ocean floor (where it can completely destroy all sea life there).
And, I hate to have to mention this, but sea food is barely edible as it is with all the mercury and PCBs already in the oceans without the powers that be dumping a third of the world's supply of dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico.
When do you draw the line here? What's more important - food or oil?
A lot of politicians are already starting to say, "Hey, this is terrible, but you don't stop doing something because you had an accident." That's true but illogical. They are trying to appeal to your sensibilities. Of course, I'm not going to stop riding my bicycle because I had an accident, but when I fall off of my bike, I don't devastate thousands of animals and negatively impact millions of human beings.
Why are politicians so concerned about your continued consumption of oil?
Oil extraction is dirty in every way possible - even when it's working properly. I spent a few years living in Southern California. When you go for a walk on the beach in some places, you go home with oil stuck to the bottom of your foot. When I say that it seems as though you'll never get it off, I'm not exaggerating. It's funny how that sort of thing gets left out of all the TV shows and movies glorifying California. When you see a sunset in a film, you never see the oil rigs just off the coast that the people of Santa Barbara or Ventura have to look at everyday.
Even most conservatives will admit the war in Iraq is over control of the oil reserves. It's not the first oil war, and I don't understand why politicians were so afraid to tell you what it was. You love oil. Through your actions, you prove that you love oil more than you love god and country.
Our dependency on oil is so ingrained that even the people who decide they are going to cut down on their personal consumption of it have no idea how to successfully do so. What good does a hybrid car do if you still buy a dozen different plastic bottles/wrappers/toys/electronics/household items a day? Plastic is made from oil. By buying that bottle of water instead of using the tap, you are enabling the system to continue to function. At least the guy driving the SUV is honest about his oil dependency.
Are you eating blueberries out of season? How much oil was burned to ship those berries from Chile for you to buy? You make decisions everyday that lead to oil spills and wars, but no one wants to take responsibility. You think that you'll just wait for someone else to make the changes for you and then you'll just buy into it. Look at the title of this blog, and think about what you think the world should look like. We've had it easy for a long time. It's time to role up our sleeves and make it happen.
Since British Petroleum (BP) is estimating approximately three months to stop the leak, we are looking at around 500,000 barrels leaked into the Gulf before all this is over and done. Does that seem like a lot to anyone else?
As if all that weren't bad enough, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are dumping thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals, called dispersants, into the Gulf to prevent the oil from reaching shore. I'd like this to be really clear. What they are dumping into the water is not cleaning it up. It is only making it sink to the ocean floor (where it can completely destroy all sea life there).
And, I hate to have to mention this, but sea food is barely edible as it is with all the mercury and PCBs already in the oceans without the powers that be dumping a third of the world's supply of dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico.
When do you draw the line here? What's more important - food or oil?
A lot of politicians are already starting to say, "Hey, this is terrible, but you don't stop doing something because you had an accident." That's true but illogical. They are trying to appeal to your sensibilities. Of course, I'm not going to stop riding my bicycle because I had an accident, but when I fall off of my bike, I don't devastate thousands of animals and negatively impact millions of human beings.
Why are politicians so concerned about your continued consumption of oil?
Oil extraction is dirty in every way possible - even when it's working properly. I spent a few years living in Southern California. When you go for a walk on the beach in some places, you go home with oil stuck to the bottom of your foot. When I say that it seems as though you'll never get it off, I'm not exaggerating. It's funny how that sort of thing gets left out of all the TV shows and movies glorifying California. When you see a sunset in a film, you never see the oil rigs just off the coast that the people of Santa Barbara or Ventura have to look at everyday.
Even most conservatives will admit the war in Iraq is over control of the oil reserves. It's not the first oil war, and I don't understand why politicians were so afraid to tell you what it was. You love oil. Through your actions, you prove that you love oil more than you love god and country.
Our dependency on oil is so ingrained that even the people who decide they are going to cut down on their personal consumption of it have no idea how to successfully do so. What good does a hybrid car do if you still buy a dozen different plastic bottles/wrappers/toys/electronics/household items a day? Plastic is made from oil. By buying that bottle of water instead of using the tap, you are enabling the system to continue to function. At least the guy driving the SUV is honest about his oil dependency.
Are you eating blueberries out of season? How much oil was burned to ship those berries from Chile for you to buy? You make decisions everyday that lead to oil spills and wars, but no one wants to take responsibility. You think that you'll just wait for someone else to make the changes for you and then you'll just buy into it. Look at the title of this blog, and think about what you think the world should look like. We've had it easy for a long time. It's time to role up our sleeves and make it happen.
14 December 2007
Does anyone remember...?
Does anyone remember the arguments leading up to the war in Iraq?
Everyone talks about the weapons of mass destruction and the lies, but think back to exactly what the reasoning was. The Bush administration told us- told everyone that if President Hussein would just let the inspectors do their job, and if Hussein would suspend his weapons programs, we could leave him be. But, because he wouldn't do those two things, we were forced to take action.
We have some really good perspectives on this now. First of all, we know that there weren't any active weapons programs in 2002-2003. We also know that the Bush administration knew this through officials within the administration that have since quit. Now stay with me because my point isn't that we were lied to. That point has been beaten to death. My point is the way an argument was and is being presented.
So presently, we are presented with the fact that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003. When Bush was trying to build support for the war in Iraq, suspending the weapons programs was all that he required, but now that he has proof of Iran suspending its programs, he says that's not enough. He says that they could start it up again.
Is this real? Are we going to act with hostility toward nations that might start a weapons program... and after that might develop nuclear weapons... and after that might attack someone? There are roughly nine nations worldwide that have nuclear weapons, and so far the only people that have ever attacked someone with them is the United States.
Why does the Bush administration think they can get away with this?
They know that you'll let them get away with it. Consistency is irrelevant. Their arguments don't even have to make sense anymore. You've proven you won't stand up and say anything.
Everyone talks about the weapons of mass destruction and the lies, but think back to exactly what the reasoning was. The Bush administration told us- told everyone that if President Hussein would just let the inspectors do their job, and if Hussein would suspend his weapons programs, we could leave him be. But, because he wouldn't do those two things, we were forced to take action.
We have some really good perspectives on this now. First of all, we know that there weren't any active weapons programs in 2002-2003. We also know that the Bush administration knew this through officials within the administration that have since quit. Now stay with me because my point isn't that we were lied to. That point has been beaten to death. My point is the way an argument was and is being presented.
So presently, we are presented with the fact that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003. When Bush was trying to build support for the war in Iraq, suspending the weapons programs was all that he required, but now that he has proof of Iran suspending its programs, he says that's not enough. He says that they could start it up again.
Is this real? Are we going to act with hostility toward nations that might start a weapons program... and after that might develop nuclear weapons... and after that might attack someone? There are roughly nine nations worldwide that have nuclear weapons, and so far the only people that have ever attacked someone with them is the United States.
Why does the Bush administration think they can get away with this?
They know that you'll let them get away with it. Consistency is irrelevant. Their arguments don't even have to make sense anymore. You've proven you won't stand up and say anything.
23 November 2007
The Road from the Airport
I just watched an interview with CNN's Sanjay Gupta and documentary film producer Michael Moore. My own opinions of Michael Moore aside (and I'll ask you to do the same), he made a side point while trying to illustrate a grander point which was that, "[Franklin Delano Roosevelt] defeated the Nazis, and the Japanese, and Mussolini in less time than it's taken us to secure the road from the airport to downtown Bagdad."
I became lost on this and missed the rest of what he was saying. This is a staggering point. Think of everything your parents or grandparents (or great-grandparents for Generation Y) told you about World War II. Think of every documentary, book, television show, and movie you've ever seen taking place during World War II. Think of all of these things, and now put that into the context of this statement. The Allied Powers took Normandy, pushed the Nazis out of France, and overtook and occupied Germany and people still can't walk around Bagdad without being gunned down or blown up. We defeated one of the greatest navies the world has ever known and occupied Japan and we can't secure a few highways for transportation.
How is this possible? I know the lip-service, sound-bite, "News at 11" reasons for it, but to be honest, my intuition is saying something just isn't right about this. What is going on over there? Should I even be looking to Iraq with a question mark over my head, or should my attention be elsewhere? If it's implausible that a country of our wealth, determination, and military standing is unable to quell the situation in Iraq (the argument of whether or not we should be there aside), then what are we doing there?
I think I have my answers, but what do you think?
What makes sense to you?
And once you have your answers, reexamine them.
Are you being honest with yourself?
When are you going to put an end to this?
I became lost on this and missed the rest of what he was saying. This is a staggering point. Think of everything your parents or grandparents (or great-grandparents for Generation Y) told you about World War II. Think of every documentary, book, television show, and movie you've ever seen taking place during World War II. Think of all of these things, and now put that into the context of this statement. The Allied Powers took Normandy, pushed the Nazis out of France, and overtook and occupied Germany and people still can't walk around Bagdad without being gunned down or blown up. We defeated one of the greatest navies the world has ever known and occupied Japan and we can't secure a few highways for transportation.
How is this possible? I know the lip-service, sound-bite, "News at 11" reasons for it, but to be honest, my intuition is saying something just isn't right about this. What is going on over there? Should I even be looking to Iraq with a question mark over my head, or should my attention be elsewhere? If it's implausible that a country of our wealth, determination, and military standing is unable to quell the situation in Iraq (the argument of whether or not we should be there aside), then what are we doing there?
I think I have my answers, but what do you think?
What makes sense to you?
And once you have your answers, reexamine them.
Are you being honest with yourself?
When are you going to put an end to this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)