arin's attic

meet the new “rational and forward thinking” previously known as “reckless and irrational planning”

arin721 — 2010-07-26T15:11:55+00:00

reading this and i’m struck once again by how words continue to be redefined…

Talking strategy with oil vividly gushing on TV news coverage across America gets nowhere as deep emotions overwhelm rational forward thinking. Now that it appears the well cap has been successful and the flow of oil stopped, although not without some trepidation, we can have a more serious strategic discussion about the oil & gas future for the Gulf of Mexico.

Let’s put this in context. Certainly, stopping the flow has been terrific news, but there is no other way to describe the Deepwater Horizon blowout than a monumental disaster with lasting impact for many years to come. To date, job number one for BP has been rightly to do whatever possible to contain and stop the leak. Job number two followed closely behind for the federal and state governments, BP, the communities impacted, the oil & gas industry, and anyone else who wants to help is clean up and prevent/reduce the environmental damage. Everywhere you turn there are assessments on how well all this cleanup has gone, so let’s leave this subject for others.

But the Obama administration has also seen fit to jump into the strategic dimensions when the emotions have been high with the six month moratorium on drilling. That not surprisingly led to a court fight with the oil & gas industry winning for the moment. This has been temporary as Energy Secretary Salazar has a revised moratorium under the theme of safety.

the shill is unhappy with the six month moratorium, as it’s anything but “rational, forward thinking”.

It is a little hard to say the industry hasn’t been safe with over forty thousand wells in the US waters of the Gulf of Mexico without such previous major incident for decades. Of course, one can argue for zero tolerance which has some real merit but perhaps not practical. The strategic question must address whether the industry has widespread safety concerns or is this uniquely difficult well, poorly maintained rig, or a maverick operator? The press reports and congressional testimony suggest the latter. The Wall Street Journal headlines on July 19, 2010 reported that the spill investigators were focusing on a list of more than twenty anomalies. BP’s partner Anadarko tried to distance itself with Chief Executive Officer James T. Hackett’s statement on June 18, 2010, “The mounting evidence demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions.” Many in the industry argue at the heart of the matter is BP could have and should have used a safer well design but operational objectives got in the way of safety first. In the end, it looks like the blowout and BP’s handling of it has cost Tony Hayward his job.

you cannot argue for practicality while simultaneously arguing against it. practicality dictates that we stop what we’re doing and *find out what happened* before we allow such a thing to happen again. if we continue to drill without finding out the cause, we’re being reckless. this is not “rational, forward thinking”. while evidence suggests that BP mishandled the well, there is also evidence to suggest that there was a terrible lack of oversight by government agencies. everything that led up to this disaster must be looked at and corrections made, so that this type of thing doesn’t occur again. *that* is “rational, forward thinking”.

Now that the Deepwater Horizon is not just scenario planning but starkly real, the next important work for the industry must be around finding how to improve the containment system and make it dramatically faster and better. It has been encouraging to see the proactive response of ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips with plans to build and deploy a $1 billion rapid-response system to capture and contain oil in the event of a future underwater well blowout. As Houston Chronicle reporter Monica Hatcher outlined in her July 21, 2010 article. “Unlike BP’s system, much of which was designed and built on the fly to handle the unfolding Gulf disaster, the new equipment will be pre-engineered, constructed, tested and on standby for immediate deployment in case of an emergency. As part of the initiative, the four firms will form a nonprofit company called the Marine Well Containment Co. to operate and maintain the system.”

that’s wonderful! that’s the type of thing we need before we should allow more drilling. we need to know the impact of such disasters and have a plan in place to deal with whatever “unintended consequences” might occur. (one can rightly argue that if you act, knowing that a particular consequence may result from your action, then the result isn’t “unintended”, it’s “acceptable”. to accept continued drilling, without fully knowing the cause of the bp spill, you are acknowledging that another major disaster is not only possible, but acceptable.)

On the other side of the equation, the economic impact of the six month drilling moratorium is severe. There are many estimates on the job loss, some as high as 46,000 directly related to the rigs and more broadly hundreds of thousands impacted. However, the Oil & Gas Journal’s reporting of analyst Douglas Becker’s comments on July 23, 2010 contends the disaster is not terminal such as the impact of Three Mile Island on the nuclear industry. I am not so sure the strategic ramifications are not larger. There was and have been alternative means of generating electric power with nuclear just one piece of the portfolio. No real meaningful alternatives to crude derived gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel exist today; it will take time.

again, the author redefines the issue. it’s not the economic impact of the moratorium, it’s the economic impact of the bp oil spill. there would be no moratorium necessary had there been no bp spill. the fault lies there, not with the moratorium.

But why is the Obama Administration so adamant on pursuing a drilling moratorium? Mario Loyola in his front cover August 2, 2002 National Review article contends this is just part of a strategy to pursue comprehensive energy and climate legislation. If so, it naively ignores the short and midterm impact on this country’s energy future.

okay, if it’s in the national review, it’s just so much punditry, shilling for the oil & gas industry. while the obama administration, among others, are interested in pursuing comprehensive energy and climate legislation, this moratorium would never have occurred had the oil & gas industry and the government agencies responsible not been lax in preparing for this type of disaster. the blame on obama is misplaced and misguided. (also, it’s absurd that “comprehensive energy and climate legislation” is used in a disparaging way.)

There is no doubt that with this moratorium, deep water drilling rigs are and will move to other locales around the world as the demand for them exists. These rigs, as many have noted, will not come back for multiple years so it is not really a six month moratorium. The production impact from the Gulf of Mexico which represents about one third of our current US output could reach half of billion barrels a day or more over the next five years. Sure this could impact pricing for crude oil and detrimentally affect our energy security equation. But for Houston as the Energy Capital, the result could be much more profound.

the author goes on to lament the economic impact in houston and the us due to the lack of drilling in the gulf. while it’s true that the oil & gas industry will look for other places to drill, this would be true regardless of the moratorium. while the impact of the bp spill is adversely affecting those who work in the oil & gas industry along the gulf, a second spill, at this time, would cause an even greater impact.

also, we should not ignore the fact that the oil & gas industry is unprepared for work stoppage as a result of this type of disaster. for all the lamenting about oil workers not being paid, i have to ask, “why aren’t they?” this is a multi-billion dollar industry that has the means to continue to pay its workers in the face of a disaster. that they choose not to should be a sign of the loyalty these firms have towards their employees.

it’s this simple: my house is bitterly cold. i could warm up my house by building a fire in the fireplace. i’ve never burned down a house by using the fireplace, so i deem it safe to do so. this time, however, the fire leaps out and sets the room ablaze. yes, the house is now much warmer and i could make it even warmer by building a fire elsewhere in the house, but the wisest decision is to *stop building fucking fires* until 1) the fire is contained and 2) the cause of the fire is determined. otherwise, i run the risk of not only burning my entire house down, but that of my neighbours, as well. if i continue to build fires, i’m acknowledging and accepting the possible consequence of doing so. (“hey neighbour, i was cold, so i used your house as kindling!”)

clearly, while there is one *major catastrophe* in the gulf, we cannot afford the impact of another, until 1) the cause of the spill is determined and corrected and 2) the cleanup has taken place. the result of ~two~ major catastrophes would be even more economically devastating than the six month moratorium, however unlikely we “guesstimate” the likelihood of another such spill. to do otherwise can only be considered *reckless and irrational planning*.

filed in: oilspill

so ya ever had…

arin721 — 2010-07-26T13:49:44+00:00

someone sabotaging you due to their own insecurities? it’s mean, it’s cruel, and, seriously, that shit needs to stop. i’ve allowed it for entirely too long and it’s high time i deal with it. i am supportive of other people and their endeavours and i deserve the same.

now if the universe will just align accordingly, that’d be a great help. otherwise, this is going to take longer than i’d prefer.

filed in: crypticwhatsits

wherein mah pally throws caution to the wind…

arin721 — 2010-07-19T14:57:59+00:00

well, i feel a bit better about the emerging new and improved holy paladin, after reading this:

I’ll be honest with you, I wasn’t expecting this. With the release of the new 31-point talent trees in the latest beta build of Cataclysm, I immediately realized that the paladin trees were woefully out of date. It was simply another cycle of news without any real information about what was in store for holy paladins. We were promised a major redesign, but it felt like Ghostcrawler, lead systems designer, was simply playing as the Wizard of Oz. We were told that big things were happening but that we shouldn’t look behind the curtain.

A seemingly innocuous developer chat on Twitter changed all of that. While their informal Q&A sessions on Twitter often provide unique pieces of insight into the minds of the developers, they very rarely served as a source for any sort of serious information. Last week’s BlizzChat broke that mold, and some revolutionary paladin information was shared with the world. Paladins are gaining a new resource in addition to mana: Holy Power. While my fellow paladins argued between the names “Holy Powah” and my submission of “HoPo,” the fact is that this is the most major change to paladin design since we were introduced into the game.

though i still plan to switch to horde, come cataclysm, so that i can level up through the new and improved vanilla wow, i’m unsure what will become of my little pally. i’m torn on whether to move her horde side or leave her where she is. my current plan has me leveling my horde shaman to 80, so that i have at least *one* level 80 on the horde side and then leaving the paladin where she is. it’s good to know, whichever i choose, though, when i do play her, she’ll be rockin’ with her new talent tree.

The holy power mechanic further cements paladins as the “melee healer,” especially when we look at restoration shaman.

i’m really liking the “melee healer” aspect, too. back in the day, i was most comfortable being on top of the tank in melee range. for one, it became clear to me very quickly that the smartest move was to always follow the tank. if i stay with them, i’m much less likely to pull wandering adds and, if i do, it’s much easier for them to pull them off me, if necessary. (secretly, i like tanking adds while healing, but i absolutely *hate* dying while doing it.) also, it’s much easier to just run in with the tank, rather than waiting to see where the tank is going to be and then positioning myself at range. i suspect this was born of 2-manning and 3-manning a gabillion instances (something i miss doing. a lot. see: my pally now soloing half of bc, just because.).

over time, my play style changed to a more cautious approach and i began standing at range more and more often - (usually to be out of the way of cleaves or *ahem* other players who drag all sorts of nastiness on top of you, which isn’t exactly helpful if you’re the main healer) and that’s okay, too! but with the new changes, it appears that my natural inclination to ~throw caution to the wind~ and rush in won’t be a bad thing and just may be most beneficial. ~yeehaw!~

*reminds self to not out run the tank* been there, done that, have the deaths to prove it! ;o

filed in: paladinsrool

crochet, crafts, and where to put ‘em…

arin721 — 2010-07-09T16:05:11+00:00

wanting a special spot to put my crocheting and other crafting stuff, i’ve started a new blog over at the snarled skein. come check it out, make use of free patterns and whatnot!

filed in: crochet, patterns

listening to…

arin721 — 2010-07-07T16:44:05+00:00

tiesto - just be

new york dolls - dance like a monkey

jo dee messina - i’m alright

filed in: goodstuff

if you’re rushing off to the ER, don’t forget the cookies!

arin721 — 2010-07-07T16:13:36+00:00

my aunt went in for a regular checkup and was told to go to the ER right away, because they think she may be having congestive heart failure. (no, seriously, this year has just sucked.)

she tells the doctor that no, she can’t go just yet. she has to go home first.

she’s baked cookies and she should take those with her for the nurses.

damn, but i love my family. buncha quirky weirdos

(she IS in the hospital now and seems to be feeling better, atm. they’ll do an angiogram thingy on friday. also, the nurses loved the cookies.)

filed in: thingsnottodowhenhavingheartfailure

that’s right. i’m a justice stephen breyer fangrrl.

arin721 — 2010-07-02T01:16:13+00:00

i may be the only one of my kind, but by golly, he’s MAH HERO. he wins me over with statements like: “...the Court should not look to history alone but to other factors as well—above all, in cases where the history is so unclear that the experts themselves strongly disagree. It should, for example, consider the basic values that underlie a constitutional provision and their contemporary significance. And it should examine as well the relevant consequences and practical justifications that might, or might not, warrant removing an important question from the democratic decisionmaking process.”

in recent news, Supreme Court backs up right to bear arms:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

the issue at hand is whether or not “the right to keep and bear arms” is so fundamental a right as to require it’s incorporation at a state level. this would interpret “the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. ” (Justice Stephen Breyer) this will impose a burden upon courts to answer questions, when dealing with gun regulations, that they do not have the tools or means to answer; whereas, legislators do.

justice stephen breyer states:

The fact is that judges do not know the answers to the kinds of empirically based questions that will often determine the need for particular forms of gun regulation. Nor do they have readily available “tools” for finding and evaluating the technical material submitted by others. District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 21); see also Turner Broadcasting, 520 U. S., at 195-196. Judges cannot easily make empirically based predictions; they have no way to gather and evaluate the data required to see if such predictions are accurate; and the nature of litigation and concerns about stare decisis further make it difficult for judges to change course if predictions prove inaccurate. Nor can judges rely upon local community views and values when reaching judgments in circumstances where prediction is difficult because the basic facts are unclear or unknown.

At the same time, there is no institutional need to send judges off on this “mission-almost-impossible.” Legislators are able to “amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.” United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 67 (1965). They are far better suited than judges to uncover facts and to understand their relevance. And legislators, unlike Article III judges, can be held democratically responsible for their empirically based and value-laden conclusions. We have thus repeatedly affirmed our preference for “legislative not judicial solutions” to this kind of problem, see, e.g., Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 513 (1982), just as we have repeatedly affirmed the Constitution’s preference for democratic solutions legislated by those whom the people elect.

In sum, the police power, the superiority of legislative decisionmaking, the need for local decisionmaking, the comparative desirability of democratic decisionmaking, the lack of a manageable judicial standard, and the life-threatening harm that may flow from striking down regulations all argue against incorporation. Where the incorporation of other rights has been at issue, some of these problems have arisen. But in this instance all these problems are present, all at the same time, and all are likely to be present in most, perhaps nearly all, of the cases in which the constitutionality of a gun regulation is at issue. At the same time, the important factors that favor incorporation in other instances—e.g., the protection of broader constitutional objectives—are not present here. The upshot is that all factors militate against incorporation—with the possible exception of historical factors.

Breyer goes on to say that historical records are unclear as to whether or not the “right to keep and bear arms” is so fundamental a right as to require states to incorporate it:

...nothing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense, as described in Heller, is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history or tradition” or is otherwise “fundamental.” Indeed, incorporating the right recognized in Heller may change the law in many of the 50 States. Read in the majority’s favor, the historical evidence is at most ambiguous. And, in the absence of any other support for its conclusion, ambiguous history cannot show that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a private right of self-defense against the States.

there are very real concerns on both sides of the issue, but much like abortion, it’s almost impossible to discuss the 2nd amendment rationally. ...and hey, i admit it: i have a bias against guns. i have owned them, cleaned them, loaded them, fired them. now, i want no part of them and would prefer, unless i know you really well, that you not have them around me. (a year in hell with a man who threatened to shoot you repeatedly will do that.)

i, also, believe that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon the necessity of a “well-regulated militia”... *just like the 2nd amendment says* and i don’t believe you should be able to piecemeal and parse amendments until they say what you want them to say without *amending* the amendments. while i consider myself a stephen breyer fangrrl, i disagree with him that the “well regulated militia” portion is no longer a concern. i think it’s *exactly* what is at issue. some gun control advocates might be more willing to compromise on regulations if they felt like the people who owned guns were well-vetted and were receiving proper military training. for every responsible gun owner out there, there are plenty who are not. they are the people involved in “accidental” shootings, who mix alcohol and weaponry, and who make statements like, “i’d happily shoot anyone who broke into my home” (they’re either idiots or simply delusional. there is NOTHING “happy” about killing someone, no matter the circumstances.). additionally, some effort must be made to keep guns out of the hands of paranoid gun fanatics (my ex).

if a community feels that the only tool they have to combat a rise in gun deaths is to enact some type of gun restrictions, they should have the right to do so. what occurs in urban settings is different than what occurs in rural communities and each community should have the ability to determine what’s best for them - within reason, which is where judicial review should come in.

further, the supposition that the courts are ~better~ suited than the legislature to be the decisionmaking authority, because they are not subject to political pressure is simply… hooey. it’s become very clear that politics plays a tremendous role in the court system. see: texas republican supreme court. see: consistent 5-4 rulings in scotus.

since “self-defense” is so much a concern of the courts, i find it bizarre that they are willing to overthrow gun control legislation enacted by communities as a means of defending themselves against loons with guns. *insert right-wing screech about ~activist judges~*

filed in: 2ndamendment, breyerfangrrl, gunsgivemehives, scotus

clearing my bookshelf, one page at a time…

arin721 — 2010-06-30T13:00:29+00:00

i iz a bookworm again. finally. after a prolonged stall in my reading (i just couldn’t stay focused), i’m suddenly ~all up in that~:

stephen king, “under the dome”: my only problem, lately, has been the ability to stay awake for more than a page at a time… and let me just say, this is NOT a book that you want to have fall on your nose after you’ve dozed off reading. at least not in hardback if you like stephen king, if you loved the stand, you’ll ~love~ this book - small town, going about it’s daily business, when suddenly from out of nowhere, a dome appears over the town, blocking them off from the rest of society. if you’ve ever read “lord of the flies”, this is the stephen king version. gruesome, horrifying, and gripping.

richard kadray, “sandman slim”: seriously, you can’t go wrong with a book about an assassin from hell who comes back to earth seeking revenge on those who sent him to hell. anti-heroes of the world, rejoice! fun book, reminiscent of “the dresden files” by jim butcher.

“Hell’s a circus run by mental patients. Heaven’s a gated community where we’re the bastard stepkids the real kids hate.”

“While it’s giving me a migraine right now, I think the fact that I’m not an expert on corpse disposal says alot of good things about me and my life choices.”

ursula k leguin, “wizard of earthsea”: into the “dislike” pile. i like fantasy books. i love stories about knights and wizards and whatnot. i just prefer them to not be dry and boring ;o i suspect that people who liked tolkien would like this quite a bit, but it’s not something i enjoyed. i didn’t care about the characters and, after an entire book of the boy wizard searching for his demon, the ending was just a relief.

pat conroy, “the great santini”: i read this simply because i’d loved “the water is wide” and no, i’ve never seen the movie and it didn’t disappoint - it was really good! a semi-autobiographical story about pat conroy’s own childhood and his growing up under the strict hand of his military father. it’s interesting to note that the depiction of him so upset pat conroy’s father that he struggled to make changes and the two of them repaired their relationship. also, reminded me of how bizarre my father could be at times. ;o

paulo coehlo, “the alchemist”: i wanted to like this book. it’s a simple little tale about a boy and his search for treasure, following a prophetic dream. i’m told that it’s inspirational, a metaphor for life, and simply enchanting. mostly, i found it trite and overly simplistic. “don’t worry, be happy!” people always annoyed me in much the same way. over here in the *real world*, there are more complexities than that.

john connolly, “the book of lost things”: zomg, i love, love, loved it! honestly, it took me 4 tries to read it, because the very beginning of the book is soooooooooooooo sad. i’d get to a certain spot and just have to put it down. finally, i was able to get past that spot and i was soooooooooooooooo glad that i did. beautiful, beautiful book about a little boy dealing with the death of his mother and his travels through the world of his books. i’m fairly certain that just about every fairy tale was worked into the boy’s fantasy world and the blending of all of these tales is simply magical.

“For in every adult there dwells the child that was, and in every child there lies the adult that will be.”

“He would talk to them of stories and books, and explain to them how stories wanted to be told and books wanted to be read, and how everything that they ever needed to know about life and the land of which he wrote, or about any land or realm that they could imagine, was contained in books. And some of the children understood, and some did not.”

“Before she came ill, David’s mother would often tell him that stories were alive. They weren’t alive in the way that people were alive, or even dogs or cats. (...) Stories were different, though: they came alive in the telling. Without a human voice to read them aloud, or a pair of wide eyes following them by torch light beneath a blanket, they had no real existence in our world. (...) They lay dormant, hoping for the chance to emerge. Once someone started to read them, they could begin to change. They could take root in the imagination and transform the reader. Stories wanted to be read, David’s mother would whisper. They needed it. It was the reason they forced themselves from their world into ours. They wanted us to give them life.”

so a couple of winners, a couple of meh. and a much lighter bookshelf

filed in: books, iluffhellsassassin, quotes

~roll with it~

arin721 — 2010-06-29T05:25:40+00:00

filed in: hotdiggity, rollwithit

my love for graffiti remains unabated

arin721 — 2010-06-28T00:39:26+00:00

and my love for random KNITTED graffiti has grown by leaps and bounds…

that is just… AWE-inspiring.

i’d so do that to one of the trees in our complex, but i’d be afraid my neighbours would totally sneak out at night and unravel me ;o

for more REALLY cool examples: urban knitting: the world’s most inoffensive graffiti

...ok, so maybe just a lil skirt around one of the bushes…

filed in: graffiti, urbanknitting, yarnart