Anyone Else Hear the Dallas Theme Song?

Professor J,

How interesting that while I'm working on this today there is news of yet another explosion on a platform in the gulf.

I mentioned in a previous post that I'd lost track of the discussion of change in the policies concerning those who are supposed to be overseeing (or, if you prefer, "underseeing"). But just in time for our discussion the new head of the recently renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent out an e-mail to staffers notifying them about the new ethics rules, outlined in this article  Things are certainly worse than the public imagines when such an investigation includes the tantalizing description of those who are supposed to be holding the oil companies accountable as, "federal regulators who had sex with oil company executives and negotiated with them for jobs" (this article doesn't even cover the drugs mentioned when the story broke).  And we thought J.R. Ewing was a fictional character; who knew "Dallas" was a reality show?

The thing that bothers me about the new rules is that they all seem fairly voluntary and I couldn't find the consequence of violating the new policies anywhere.  Are we to believe that now, magically these people have discovered a sense of personal responsibility and are going to hold themselves to these new standards? Isn't it just the same old barn with a new coat of paint?  "Look, we made new rules!"  One could hope that the new man in charge is someone with a strong character and sense of justice, we'll see.  The "penalties" you noted that are currently in place are indeed laughable. It is the rare industry, corporation, or organization that can effectively police itself. I found it odd that according to the article, the "overseers" live in close proximity and see the workers in daily social interactions, given what we know about the unspoken power of the "group" that seems a very poor way to conduct oversight.


"They framed the argument, and then they waived the “if we go bankrupt, no one and nothing will get paid” phantom." Why can't both things be true at the same time, that no one would get paid AND that they are hiding behind that argument?

You said "like the addicts we are, we just take the discomfort from the bad effects" which is true and fair enough but change in our communities which are designed for cars and not people will be a massive undertaking.  Everything built for decades has been designed with the car and not pedestrians in mind.  Zoning laws even conspire to make walking and bike riding impractical. Suburban neighborhoods without stores in walking distance and the lack of decent and reliable public transportation in most places mean we are far from being able to start detox without, as you say, a great deal of pain.

We are not only addicted but held hostage by our own poor planning and lack of foresight.

I think Siberia SOUNDS like a form of punishment/exile (the intent I'm sure) but anyplace can be made bearable if not pleasant with enough money, and I somehow doubt he's spending all his time there. It's also interesting that he's playing musical countries/ job titles with the guy who blew it with the Russians.

Telling the people the truth? They don't even do that when the truth is a fairly easy one to adjust to.  But I do agree with you that people know something is wrong and just want someone to give it to them straight. I think the average citizen wants someone who would come out and tell the truth no matter how scary or hard it is.

I'm not sure people are really waking up to the fragility of the system. The things I read that advocate urban farming and a local diet seem to be based more on a "save the planet" mindset. I'm not sure anyone wants to think about how quickly the supply of food down at the local grocery would run out in a worst case scenario, and that it would be impossible to restock given the slightest disruption in the transportation system...but  I am prone to some very dark thinking sometimes. Of course it could be that they are framing the situation and solution this way intentionally as a means of educating people and changing behavior without crossing over into frightening predictions.

Remember a few posts back when you said I like to give people the benefit of the doubt? Now I have been called out on that by the illustrious Ms. Rand (by means of a character description) as well. In her notes for Atlas Shrugged she specifically mentions it as a weakness in Dagny Taggart's character, "Her over optimism is in thinking that men are better than they are; she doesn't really understand them and is generous about it."  She spends two or three pages expounding on the idea.  Hmmm..."over optimism"...maybe, and here I just thought I was hopeful. Thinking and rethinking that.  lol