Virtual Front Page, Thursday, May 6, 2010

Sorry about not having one yesterday while remodeling, but here’s this evening’s report:

  1. Election exit poll: Tories to be 19 short of majority (BBC) — Only once since the war has neither major party captured a majority, but it’s happening again.
  2. City Council calls off wreck meeting (Metro Desk blog) — After having been really ticked over Tandy Carter’s refusal to relinquish Benjamin investigation.
  3. Dow Drops Nearly 1,000 Before Rebound; Possible Bad Trades Probed (WSJ) — Hey, it sounded important…
  4. Decline in world markets prompts fears of Greek ‘contagion effect’ (WashPost) — Or, beware of Greeks bearing debt.
  5. Rig Survivors Felt Coerced To Sign Waivers (NPR) — Deepwater Horizon workers say they were urged to sign forms that are now being used against them.
  6. How Media Coverage Crimped The Times Square Case (NPR) — Heard this on the radio this morning and found it VERY interesting.

9 thoughts on “Virtual Front Page, Thursday, May 6, 2010

  1. Bart

    I read the article in NPR about the rig survivors. Don’t agree with the way Deepwater Horizon handled the survivors but that is not the point I would like to bring up. In the comments section, one of them linked to an article in Rigzone.

    A caller to the Mark Levin show was on the rig and gave an explanation or his version of the events as he knew them that led to the explosion. There were several follow-up comments by others in the comments section that supported and added to the topic.

    Suggest you read it and hopefully, we try to put the accident into proper perspective, not become another political event for the uninformed.

  2. Wally Altman

    Thanks for the link Bart, that was a good read. However, it didn’t change my perspective on the incident and its implications for offshore drilling at all. Either someone screwed up, in which case we need to strengthen regulation and/or enforcement before drilling is allowed to continue; or else it was an unavoidable freak accident, in which case a serious conversation about the risks of offshore drilling, and whether we should even be doing it at all, is in order.

    In either case, a “political event” is appropriate and inevitable. Unlike many of the fabricated concerns people like to get themselves worked up about, this accident involves real issues in which the public has an interest.

  3. Bart


    Wasn’t looking to change anyone’s mind. My link and comments were clear. If you re-read my last sentence, it was meant for the “uniformed” who make unfounded assumptions, not those who want to have a legitimate discussion of the pros and cons of offshore drilling.

    As predicted, once Halliburton was mentioned, the company was faulted for the explosion and with it, Cheney, Bush, and blame. It is no more their fault that it is Obama’s.

    My view is that we should be drilling onshore, not offshore unless absolutely necessary. The environment has enough pressure on it and our oceans must be protected.

  4. Wally Altman

    I have to admit that when I hear the words “Halliburton”, “oil”, and any of “accident/disaster/explosion”, in the same breath, I tend to make certain assumptions. But you’re right of course, Bart; as yet there’s no specific evidence they’ve done anything wrong…this time.

  5. Bart


    “…this time.” Too funny. 🙂 Don’t worry, eventually, something will stick. Remember, even a teflon coating wears off over time.

  6. Kathryn Fenner

    Uh, Bart–I think you meant “uninformed”? Not our guys in the armed forces, right?

    How’s stuff going to stick in an oil slick?? Ha ha

    or is it a Tarbaby?

  7. Bart


    Yep, meant “uninformed”. Didn’t proof read before submitting. I will go stand in the corner and forego my usual bedtime snack tonight. 🙁

Comments are closed.