Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the first-time-for-everything dept.

Government 368

bonch writes "The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report by reordering paragraphs to make it appear as though a seven-member panel of independent experts supported the six-month ban on offshore drilling. The IG report states, 'The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,' but the panel had only reviewed a draft of safety recommendations and not a drilling ban. The White House has issued a statement saying that there was 'no intentional misrepresentation of their views.' This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."

cancel ×

368 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hope you like your change. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201736)

Nothing really ever changes.

Re:I hope you like your change. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202252)

I only came here to see the breadth of excuses the left-wing vocal majority on /. were naturally expected to offer, but I was surprised y'all were so anxious that you even beat out the frosty piss folk. Now that's dedication to distraction!

Re:I hope you like your change. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202310)

Now if people would only realize that since nothing has changed, BOTH sides suck.

Two sides of the same evil coin. Why do you keep returning to the other side expecting anything different?

Re:I hope you like your change. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202472)

This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry. That's a somewhat refreshing change... or would be if the effect of the report was something more than uniting the oil lobby and republican partisans. And I suspect that unlike the the last administration's report diddling, I get the feeling that this is actually going to backfire on the current administration. That's change.

Democrats: we may not be any more honest, but we screw up so spectacularly when we lie that it's -almost- like we're more honest.

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201744)

Politicians screw things up again, confuse issues, try to get a certain spin on things!

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About it!

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201758)

Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (3, Insightful)

dhall (1252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201800)

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Cue CSI: Miami intro?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201842)

Yep.

And yet, there are still people who get all bent out of shape when the other guy wins or they're soooo happy when their guy wins.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202048)

They are called "cheerleaders" and they are the first to get fucked.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202126)

They are called "cheerleaders" and they are the first to get fucked.

You obliviously never saw the cheerleaders at my school.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202266)

Yeah, just like sports fans. Or religious zealots. Wait a second, could there possibly be a connection?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0, Flamebait)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201936)

Sigh, you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right? I mean K street, Iraq, Katrina or the present economic crisis, these are not minor things, but significant instances of corruption and incompetence. But then again, it's not like reality has anything to do with it.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (5, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202038)

Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.

Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (2, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202110)

Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions. Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.

Not forgivable, no. But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either, which is what tends to happen. Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen. We'll keep bouncing from one set of crooks to another. Unfortunately, the ones who have to make those reforms are the ones that benefit the most from the status quo.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (5, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202150)

You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202316)

You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.

No, I was just going with the implicit concession you made in your statement that the lies that got us into the Iraq war, and those in all the various other scandals of the last administration were bigger and more harmful than this particular one. This administration hasn't been around long enough to even come close to surpassing the lies of the previous administration. Your assumptions about the basis of my statement and my motivations are simply wrong.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0, Redundant)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202530)

Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.

No, but this is politics we're talking about. Less corruption is better, but it's always going to be there. If you think your government is completely corruption free, that just means that they're really good at it. At least this lie didn't involve us getting into a war and didn't involve large amounts of tax dollars going to corporations. GGP suggesting that just because this politician was lying, that means he's no better than that other lying politician is naive at best.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202128)

>>>you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right?

They appear to be similar magnitude to me. Let's count the ways that I hate BOTH the republicans and democrats

- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom
- Republicans - passed the damnable Patriot Act
- Democrats - passed the Patriot Renewal Act when they should have killed it
- Republicans - started a damn war
- Democrats - won congress and could have ended the war, but instead expanded its scope
- Republicans - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by Katrina
- Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill
- Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans
- Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas
- Republicans - Won back the house, and now they want to go to war against Iran (rumor)

Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202280)

You can always vote for a third party and waste your vote!

God, I love first past the post...

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1, Troll)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202520)

Exactly which simpletons rated this blather insightful? Just because you personally do not consider something to be good (i.e. the stimulus) does not mean that knowledgeable people agree with you. Then again your signature shows you to be not only economically ignorant, but totally self centered. Fortunately, the grownups were able to prevent your ignorance from making things even worse.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202570)

Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]

;)

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1, Troll)

toadlife (301863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202592)

Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom

Bullshit.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202614)

...despite 70% opposition by Americans

Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.

I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.

Opposition by majority of americans != right (2, Insightful)

tizan (925212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202632)

I am sure majority of American voters (of the time) would have opposed civil rights law or abolishing slavery or vote/equality for women.
That is why referendum on every major decision is a bad idea.
You vote for what you think is the best leaders and let them make decision popular or unpopular and kick them out if you want
later...i think that is better than making decision by popular acceptance which would mean daily electioneering already its terrible every 2 years.

Run for power if you think you'd do a better job than is being done. But the question is: ow come every libertarian or small govt person that gets into power morphs into yet another protect wall street person ? Is Wall St the center of liberterianism ?

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202638)

- Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill

That would be BP's responsibility, the gov't has done all that it can, though arguably it could've done more to prevent it (see TFA)

- Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans

But saved the economy and made a nice profit for the government

- Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans

But the same americans polled on the parts of that bill were much more in favor. And it provided many protections and extended coverage

- Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas

anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.

If you're going to accuse the democrats of something, at least look for their failures.

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202702)

Thus reveals the illusion of choice. Two different colored vehicles with different music driving to the same place. Dont like the music or the color of the one? Get on the other! Hey, it's YOUR choice!! YOU have a voice!!! the third option is to drive in a circle and accomplish nothing. Welcome to america, land of the predetermined outcome. Grade school -> college -> job or more school + family = success. ...The only way to win is not to play...How 'bout a nice game of chess?

I'll give ya half credit (5, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202744)

I'm mostly okay with what you're saying, maybe not to the degree you are taking it, but largely I would agree. Save for one point:

- Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom

The "no person shall be turned down" policy of 1997 only effected a very specific subset of banks. Specifically, of the top 20 sub prime mortgage lenders in the build up to the 2008 blow out, 2 we under the regulations applied by that law. And they were (IIRC) 18th and 20th for the total amount of money lent to sub-prime loans.

No, the underlying cause of the housing bubble is a standard free-market behavior couple with greedy people willing to lie. You had a whole lot of upper-middle and upper class individuals with money to invest. They gave their money to investment firms (and banks, which after the repeal of the GS act, could behave like investment firms). These investment companies had too much liquidity, too much money in the pocket, and not enough out in the market earning interest. So they pushed for more loans. Business loans, construction loans, home loans, personal loans, etc...

Well then it becomes a supply and demand issue. There are a finite number of "good bets" on the market at any given time. And with the excess liquidity in the credit market, all those were snatched up first. From there, we had loads of "pretty good bets". And those too got snatched up.

Then we started getting into the "completely crap bets." Ideally, there shouldn't be enough liquidity in the credit market that these loans are ever going through. But between the huge amount of demand for investments, and the completely bogus CDL vehicles misrepresenting the risk, they were selling like hot cakes.

Now, had the GS Act still been in place, all of this would have happened to investment firms, which should have known better, should have protected there investments, and if they neglected the signs, gone bankrupt. The problem though, is that banks were in on the deals. And when a bank loses hard like this they have insurance through AIG and if things get bad enough, FDIC. And that's when everything went to crap.

So yeah, the dismantling of GS opened the tax payers and economy to this risk, but it wasn't the cause. Nor was Clinton's affordable housing initiative.

The underlying cause is the exact same thing that lead up to the great depression: The excessive consolidation of wealth. I'm not a bleeding heart commie, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when we have too much money in too few of hands, the economy suffers significantly.

Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.

-Rick

Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201920)

It's is amazing how it's laughed away when one side does it, but it's the worst thing in the world the other does it.

Ain't hypocrisy grand.

Why is this on slashdot? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202060)

I'll take my nerd news without polotics thanks.

Re:Why is this on slashdot? (0, Troll)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202070)

Good plan. Stick you head in the sand and ignore it. I'm sure it'll all just go away...

Re:Why is this on slashdot? (0, Troll)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202154)

I tend to agree with the GP on this one. I think the issue is that this story really isn't remotely technology related, and could be found anywhere that was a general news or political news site. It doesn't really belong on a "news for nerds" website. When I want general news, I just go to news.google.com or similar. I come here to get things that aren't always found on mainstream sites, technology related, and perhaps a bit out of the mainstream media's reach. Nothing wrong with political stories on /. in the least, and they are wanted here, assuming they are at least remotely related to technology as well.

Re:Why is this on slashdot? (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202260)

Could you point to the mission statement for /. stating that it's meant to deal only in technology news? I'd also love to see the information that suggests nerds have no concern for their governments deceptions.
A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo, ... Guess it's a damn good thing someone linked it here or I might not have seen it.

Re:Why is this on slashdot? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202384)

it. I'm sure it'll all just go away...

Yes, that is usually what happens. The voters find all this perfectly acceptable. Why can't you?

Damn you George Bushitler!!! (5, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201752)

Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......

Never mind.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201854)

Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......

Never mind.

It's Clinton's fault! God! Some people are just so clueless.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (5, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202012)

Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (0, Flamebait)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202132)

This would never have happened under President Bush.

Nobody would have taken a second to analyze oil industry safety in his White House.

Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202294)

"Wait a sec.....wrong administration......."

I'll just leave this here:

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg [tinypic.com]

Politicians Lie (3, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201756)

Film at 11:00pm

Obama lied, fish died.

Re:Politicians Lie (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201996)

very cute. Is that from the "If it rhymes it must be true dept"?

This is a serious breach of trust regarding the policy used to CLEAN UP THE GOPs MESS>

Still bad, I still am just as pissed off about this as I would be with GWB if he'd done it (which I'm pretty sure he did fudge facts on a legion of issues).

But Obama in no way caused the oil disaster. Well one *possible* avenue of responsibility stems from the Sec of Interior he chose, but that's so far down the list of directly attributable causes of the disaster it ain't even funny.

Re:Politicians Lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202182)

Nobody died when Clinton lied.

Re:Politicians Lie (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202262)

People at the Aspirin Factory would beg to differ.

What? you actually believe it wasn't about getting the fat school girl's blue dress off the front page?

Re:Politicians Lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202318)

Tell that to the people in that aspirin factory we bombed.

Most transparent administration ever! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201836)

Even their lies are obvious!

Unintentional? (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201866)

Yes, because the White House assigns stuff like this to their interns, and doesn't employ squadrons of people who are masters at wordsmithing.

Re:Unintentional? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202118)

Hanlon's Razor:
        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Unintentional? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202176)

This was actually reported ~4 months ago, when the oil spill was still happening, and one of the White House staff admitted they didn't like the recommendations so they "massaged" it to provide the answer they wanted. They then apologized for it. Kinda similar to how Cigarette companies produce studies showing smoking is good for you.

Is this a surprise? (4, Insightful)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201872)

Was there really any doubt that the ban was a purely political decision in the first place?

Re:Is this a surprise? (1, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201960)

Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.

Re:Is this a surprise? (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202196)

>>>Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s

We'd still be in the same spot, because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does. For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.

Re:Is this a surprise? (2, Insightful)

master0ne (655374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202516)

>>>Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.

That implies we could have developed better more efficient means than we currently have, possibly solar that uses more of the spectrum, or more portable options that could replace gas/diesel fuels. Your assumption that we would still be at the current level of R&D is flawed.

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202522)

So pave over Nevada and Arizona. Then use the spare power to crack water to get Hydrogen and make our own hydrocarbons.

Re:Is this a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202648)

after the latest election results from these states, well Nevada at least, that's not a bad plan after all...

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202566)

For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada...

I wouldn't mind seeing the math on that

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202448)

BP is the problem. It is no surprise that it was BP instead of Shell or Exxon. BP did it, AGAIN.

Alternative energy will go forward from high cost applications at the margins, driven by higher oil and gas prices. Not some magic Federal program.

Last time, in the 1970-80s energy crunch, we had that Carl Sagan moment, "billions and billions", for nothing but expensive, abandoned coal liquification plants of the federal Synfuels corp.

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

master0ne (655374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202540)

If this was a Exxon incident you could have just as easily said Exxon did it AGAIN, same goes for shell, or any other BIG ENERGY company, their all horribly irresponsible, and more worried about their bottom line's and how well they do on the stock markets and how big of a bonus their CEO gets than they are about the enviroment, peoples lives, or well... anything. Bottom line is, big energy is king, and the king is only concerned with how much money he can make, not with the state of his kingdom.

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202582)

Yes, because Exxon has no history of giant offshore oil related screwups.

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202508)

I foolishly doubted it.

Personally, until they can demonstrate the ability to control this kind of well in a timely manner why should they be allowed to drill?

To me it seems like legalizing drunk driving.

Where's Kanye? (-1, Troll)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201874)

Isn't it obvious? Obama hates Gulf people. I doubt any kind of ban like this would have been considered if Chicago business interests had been at stake.

Important Notice: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201922)

Your 'useful idiot' status has just been upgraded.

Re:Where's Kanye? (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201998)

Except that Kanye was actually onto something for once. The Bush administration didn't take hurricane Katrina seriously, and previous administrations hadn't taken the levee situation seriously. But ultimately, Bush failed to provide the sort of leadership during that which was necessary.

As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?

Re:Where's Kanye? (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202220)

Shouldn't the blame be placed on the Governor?

After all he's the one who, when Bush called to send troops to help, refused to allow them entrance: "It's okay. Louisiana can handle this alone." A president is powerful, but per the constitution still not allowed to overrule a Governor during peacetime. I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.

Re:Where's Kanye? (2, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202250)

Except there was nothing a sitting president could do about utter incompetence and corruption of local officials during a natural disaster, as virtually all disaster response resources are not controlled by the federal government and Federal powers are extremely limited in that regard. But I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with President Bush suspending posse comitatus and unseating state and local government officials, right?

Re:Where's Kanye? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202612)

But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?

When they commit a crime, why not? At the very least you make sure the bastards pay every penny for all damages... The accident was totally avoidable with simple due diligence.

One more level of abstraction ... (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201892)

The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report ...

So now we're getting a report about a report. That's just grand. I personally am waiting for the report about the report about the report. Add a few more levels of abstraction, and we will all forget what the original issue was anyway.

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201962)

I like turtles!

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202106)

You just issued it.

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (2, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202142)

You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (2, Funny)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202484)

Even better, the summary is of the news report.

So now I'm commenting on your comment of the comment to the summary of the reports about the report about the report!

Where did all the oil go anyway?

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202240)

A Report Report? Quick someone form a Committee to investigate the Report Reporting. Of course this committee will need oversight in the form of another bi-partisan committee. Thus we have the Report Report Committee Committee.

Re:One more level of abstraction ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202708)

We only forget when a Democrat does it. When a Republican does it, it's top of the fold material for a solid week.

Surprised by /. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34201900)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community. I've seen many articles in the "Recent" page casting the current Democratic regime in a negative light not survive long, even thought they were definitely relevant to the site. Oh well, despite the best editing efforts to keep these types of things off the front page I guess some make it through.

Re:Surprised by /. (2, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201938)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this made it to the front page of Slashdot given the majority of liberals that make up this community.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Surprised by /. (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202248)

Communists? Corporatists? Some variant thereof? Yeah I know what the word "liberals" means. Totalitarianism and the illusion of individual freedom, where none actually exits.

Re:Surprised by /. (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202542)

Communists and Corporatists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. You need to start taking your meds.

Facts? We don't need no stinking facts.. (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201968)

Not when it comes to the eco industrial complex.

Not surprising given the Obamacare lies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202004)

You can keep your current plan
You will pay less
Quality will improve

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202068)

Well, you CAN keep your current plan, unless you want to change it, then you have to start over and get an Obamacare Approved (TM) plan.

You'll pay more no matter what. It's called inflation, and health insurance costs have been rising over inflation for a decade now. I don't remember anyone claiming Obamacare would cost less when you force insurance companies to stop dropping sick people.

Shit sucks, then you die.

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202116)

round here, we call it a scam.

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202206)

round here, we call it a scam.

A scam to do what, exactly?

Re:Not surprising given the Obamacare lies (0, Flamebait)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202226)

Not to feed an AC but...

Obama said that this health care overhaul would cost less. Grand parent AC is correct. Obama did say that during one of his speeches in front of congress. The problem is that many people saw through his 'cost savings' and realized that the government subsidizing health care is not a cost savings. Also many health care plans are charging the company more instead of the regular working person. The costs are just being paid for by someone else.

Health care cost have been going up since the baby boomers are retiring and using the health care system more. Since they are retired, they are fewer people paying into the system. Yes retirees pay, but working people usually pay more.

You're "superior" 2 AC's Mr. "Registered 'luser'"? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202348)

See subject-line, & get over yourself: You're the most easily tracked fool of all around this website, with your being a "registered 'luser'" here on /., that's simply because your posting history makes you easily trackable for trolling.

(Additionally - Just because you live for "karma points", that makes you 'superior' to AC's? Again, grow up, & get over yourself... and realize the truth of what was stated in my 1st paragraph above).

The oil spill... (1)

kropcke (1250744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202010)

...rendered the transparency opaque.

Intern (5, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202082)

Somewhere, at some time in the past, some underpaid, over-motivated intern had a brilliant idea to help save the world by fighting the evil oil companies first hand! He or she was more than excited just to get an internship at the white house, under the Obama administration no less! And then, this! He or she was given the opportunity to audit a world-changing report regarding one of the most publicized environmental disasters in history for typos and grammatical correctness. Being an over-achiever and one who is full of gumption, the intern took it upon him or herself to rearrange some paragraphs and really stick it to BP, knowing that they were doing the right thing to protect the world from eco-terrorists! Captain Planet would be proud, yesiree!

A few months later, a report about the report reveals the tampering, the public becomes outraged, Obama has to answer for it all, and the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked, perhaps,even developing a nasty cocaine addiction in the process....

Either that or the politico douchebags in the white-house just fucked everyone over again out of sheer boredom.

Either way, it's times like this that make me proud I went to school to become an engineer, rather than getting muddled about in that dark world of hurt that is politics!

Re:Intern (1)

Gofyerself (1709970) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202776)

Intern involved in conspiracy???? I bet on boredom.

Phil Plait will be on to this in a flash (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202088)

Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, is always railing against government interference with scientists. Now doubt we can expect a full-on blasting from him. Oh that's right, it's only Republicans in government he rants against.
 

Anybody got a diff? (5, Insightful)

Revvy (617529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202090)

All this hullabaloo and we don't even have a diff of the two versions. Lots of hot air being blown around, but nobody's seen what the real cause of the problem is. Two words got moved, should be a simple thing to diff.

-----
Who needs proof when they have a hot air balloon?

Re:Anybody got a diff? (2, Informative)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202324)

Two words got moved

“Both versions, however, revised and re-ordered the executive summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the secretary’s moratorium recommendation – which had not been peer-reviewed – and the recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report – which had been peer-reviewed – to become effectively lost.”

Re:Anybody got a diff? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202328)

we don't even have a diff

'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?

The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.

NOTAM (-1, Offtopic)

spoonist (32012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202108)

KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Re:NOTAM (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202342)

Might be interesting - I didn't look up where those particular locations are - but this is the wrong thread for it.

"Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202114)

Bending science to fit the narrative.

Figures. (1, Flamebait)

zelkovamoon (1929096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202276)

The white house is full of scum. This kind of thing doesnt really surprise me at all.

policy guided by science and not ideology (4, Interesting)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202314)

Dunno, when the largest oil blowout (it was not a spill!) happens, most people would think it prudent to stop and check all other similar endeavors. Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

Though the real question is why you can drill in the US waters without a cement-clad drill hole and a ready-made emergency sarcophagus already in place before you even start drilling. We have those requirements in Europe and people still make gobs of money with oil.

Re:policy guided by science and not ideology (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202750)

Well considering it was a fucking European oil company why didn't they bring that shit with them?

Edited (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202480)

The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs

Re:Edited (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202586)

The question /.ers want to know - did they use vi or emacs

That is classified.

Signed,
Your perpetually non-transparent government.

Re:Edited (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202634)

You're joking (I think ;) ) ... but actually, I'd be interested to know what the WH uses for reports like this. And those giant 2k page bills they draft. MS Word? :P

Re:Edited (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202738)

I'm guessing it's not LaTEX. I'd like to be wrong.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?