Oil/location report...

There are now a few very small signs of the oil on the MS beaches (but nothing
like what the media seems to be suggesting) and it is in some areas of the
Louisiana marshes, with some small areas having some pretty thick slop. Most of
the "national" coverage I've seen is incredibly misleading as the scope.

While there is a lot of "federal" water closed in the Gulf immediately south of
LA-MS-AL, the fishing in state waters for specs, reds, etc. has been good. MS
opened the shrimp up Thursday, and with a friend's Lafitte skiff, we got about
400 pounds of what we call "boilers" - ranging from about 40-50s to about
26-30s. There were no signs of the spill of any kind seen by anyone we spoke
with, but the boats were all in the Sound, not in the Gulf.

For those that don't know the area, there really aren't what most would call
"bathing beaches" in any of the area of La. that are currently in the "spill
effect zone." The "beach" basically starts on the Mississippi barrier islands
and on the coast of the MS Sound (at about Waveland/Bay St. Louis). Because of
the Sound, there is no "clear green" water in MS, except for on the Gulf sides
of the barrier islands. That begins at about Dauphin Island, AL and continues
to east into Florida.

Thus far, while there is no way to determine what the full effects will be, even
once they manage to stop the output, it doesn't appear to be as bad as it could
be. Folks down here are split pretty evenly between those who are cautiously
optimistic and those who have watched a lil' too much CNN and are
panic-stricken. One of the guys on the shrimping trip is a knowledgeable
fisherman who has lived all his life down here and is convinced that life as
"we" know it down here is finished forever. OTOH, another, also a life-long
resident, is among the cautiously optimistic. I've heard from NOAA people that
assuming the worst (reasonable) case, the bulk of the practical effects upon
marine life should be healed within 3-6 years, but that there is, thankfully, no
real danger at this point of any permanent species damage. One analogy I've
heard is comparing it to a highly-localized deadly-disease epidemic - it's a
really bad thing for those species members directly infected, but for humans as
a species, it isn't threatening.

Thus far, there is little to no visual effects on the MS, AL and FL beaches to
speak of. A few "tar balls" have washed up, but some are from natural seepage.
Thankfully, the reports on wildlife have been fairly good. The latest report
indicated that something like 300 birds have found with "visible oiling." About
250 alive and 50 dead, but there were something 150 found dead with no signs of
oiling, and IIRC, all but just a VERY few were natural deaths. The turtles have
faired at least as well. Of course, the "downrange" effects of this are unknown
and from I've heard, aren't even really predictable.

The lawyer advertising has gotten beyond ridiculous - full page ads, commercials
around the clock on every channel, etc. and unfortunately, a fair number of
folks seem ready to latch on to any loose teet, ala the Katrina aftermath. One
of the topics of conversation is what this will cost the taxpayers, separate and
apart from the actual clean-up and actual damage cost. For example, if tourists
don't come to this area because of fears "stoked" by the media rather than
actual effects of the spill, who pays, if anyone? And some of the requests to
BP are beyond the pale - one local tourism board asked BP for 7.5 mil USD _a
month_, to last until 3 years after the spill is fully cleaned up, for
advertising (with a projection that it would be at least 350 mil). I'd also
heard that certain members had suggested a straight "trust" setup with BP paying
a flat 250 mil. The organization's budget before the spill was something like
500k a month.

Anyway, for those that are interested, there are lots of maps, reports, etc.
collected and consolidated he

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

And if anyone was planning a trip anywhere down this way, or know anyone who is,
I'd offer that they need to ignore sources like CNN, etc. and find out exactly
what effects, if any, the area of the visit is actually experiencing. Thus far,
about the only thing "tourist-y" truly affected is any fishing plans in federal
waters. The local coverage is almost surreal - teams in Tyvek suits scouring
the beaches while folks swim and frolic in the background:

http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_s...vid_8800.shtml


TC,
R

wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

While it is interesting, it gives a completely distorted picture of the actual
conditions. For example, most of the "Exxon Valdez" type pictures shown in the
media are _for the most part_ concentrated in the area around Grand Isle, LA
(including the oft-published bird pics from Grand Terre linked to at the above
site) whereas the beach in the videos I've posted are Dauphin Island and the
Pensacola-Orange Beach-Gulf Shores areas, yet the "overlay" includes both areas
with no readily-visible effects and those that do have "oil spill" on/at shore
(thankfully, small areas thus far).

My issue with the bulk of the "non-local" reporting is that it totally distorts
the conditions, and in doing so, causes decisions to be made on HIGHLY
inaccurate information, which then causes "damage" where none would have
existed. For example, if someone had planned to bring their family for a week
at Orange Beach last week and cancelled thinking they would be covered in oil,
that "damaged" the local economy. And it wasn't BP's "fault" because there was
no oil there (although if there hadn't been a spill, there would have been no
such reporting, however inaccurate, so...).

This type of thing went on after Katrina, and it cost the US taxpayers billions,
much of it wasted. And it created a mindset, both here and in the world from
which it will be hard to recover, esp. if the spill reenforces it. And I hold
both major US parties to partial (and equal) account for politicizing it. Obama
doesn't need "to get angry," in fact, just the opposite. He needs to tend to
other matters - this isn't his fault, there is nothing he can personally do "on
the ground," and so, he should calmly wait to see what is what. If he needs to
flex some POTUS muscle in the future, fine, but now it should be "calm and
rational analysis" of the situation as it develops. If he does somehow get
blamed for some alleged "mis-response" in the immediate aftermath, it'll be just
as wrong as having blamed Bush for the same post-Katrina. And I'll say this for
the record - any pol (or surrogate thereof) blaming him personally for any of
this _thus far_ is plain, flat-out wrong and is, IMO, being dishonest. Thus
far, I'd defend him just as strongly as I defended Bush post-Katrina.

Obviously, this is a very complex issue on many fronts, from ecological impact
to legal aspects, but unless utmost accuracy in reporting prevails, the impact
could and likely will be artificially "enhanced" exponentially.

TC,
R

On Jun 7, 5:03*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

--
Ken Fortenberry

Oh well. Will you wake me when Mr Predictable gets to that point where
he "blames the Black Guy" OK? Or maybe when he starts up with the
"Special Secret Sauce Sources" known only to the Skull and Bones
wannabees, and the "Three drinks over the line" right-wing whack job
men's chorus line?

Dave

DaveS wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

Oh well. Will you wake me when Mr Predictable gets to that point where
he "blames the Black Guy" OK? Or maybe when he starts up with the
"Special Secret Sauce Sources" known only to the Skull and Bones
wannabees, and the "Three drinks over the line" right-wing whack job
men's chorus line?

LOL !

Yeah, if anybody was going to post an "oil spill, what oil spill ?"
to roff you had to figure it was gonna be rdean.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something,
well, "mildly interesting." If you put New York in the text box and center it
there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from
Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_
down here. But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there
were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the
rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about
Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). Of course, there is still more "at
sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's
impossible to say what the final results will be.

The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate
picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that
Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand
Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively
none. Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the
southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). And there is other
misleading info contained the

From the site:

"...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..."

The facts from NOAA:

"From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated
spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and
another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded
dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach,
we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil
prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible
evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for
the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased
detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike
in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or
debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water."

For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the
year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to
the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March).
Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the
recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural
mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and
finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown.

Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if
reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. I've heard
folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be
"Obama's Katrina." While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a
great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational,
reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for
rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any
attempts at, um, "skewing." A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone
in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to
do the same, would also be in order.

TC,
R

On Jun 6, 10:37*pm, wrote:
There are now a few very small signs of the oil on the MS beaches (but nothing
like what the media seems to be suggesting) and it is in some areas of the
Louisiana marshes, with some small areas having some pretty thick slop. *Most of
the "national" coverage I've seen is incredibly misleading as the scope.

While there is a lot of "federal" water closed in the Gulf immediately south of
LA-MS-AL, the fishing in state waters for specs, reds, etc. has been good.. *MS
opened the shrimp up Thursday, and with a friend's Lafitte skiff, we got about
400 pounds of what we call "boilers" - ranging from about 40-50s to about
26-30s. *There were no signs of the spill of any kind seen by anyone we spoke
with, but the boats were all in the Sound, not in the Gulf.

For those that don't know the area, there really aren't what most would call
"bathing beaches" in any of the area of La. that are currently in the "spill
effect zone." The "beach" basically starts on the Mississippi barrier islands
and on the coast of the MS Sound (at about Waveland/Bay St. Louis). *Because of
the Sound, there is no "clear green" water in MS, except for on the Gulf sides
of the barrier islands. *That begins at about Dauphin Island, AL and continues
to east into Florida. *

Thus far, while there is no way to determine what the full effects will be, even
once they manage to stop the output, it doesn't appear to be as bad as it could
be. *Folks down here are split pretty evenly between those who are cautiously
optimistic and those who have watched a lil' too much CNN and are
panic-stricken. *One of the guys on the shrimping trip is a knowledgeable
fisherman who has lived all his life down here and is convinced that life as
"we" know it down here is finished forever. *OTOH, another, also a life-long
resident, is among the cautiously optimistic. *I've heard from NOAA people that
assuming the worst (reasonable) case, the bulk of the practical effects upon
marine life should be healed within 3-6 years, but that there is, thankfully, no
real danger at this point of any permanent species damage. *One analogy I've
heard is comparing it to a highly-localized deadly-disease epidemic - it's a
really bad thing for those species members directly infected, but for humans as
a species, it isn't threatening.

Thus far, there is little to no visual effects on the MS, AL and FL beaches to
speak of. *A few "tar balls" have washed up, but some are from natural seepage.
Thankfully, the reports on wildlife have been fairly good. *The latest report
indicated that something like 300 birds have found with "visible oiling." *About
250 alive and 50 dead, but there were something 150 found dead with no signs of
oiling, and IIRC, all but just a VERY few were natural deaths. *The turtles have
faired at least as well. *Of course, the "downrange" effects of this are unknown
and from I've heard, aren't even really predictable. *

The lawyer advertising has gotten beyond ridiculous - full page ads, commercials
around the clock on every channel, etc. and unfortunately, a fair number of
folks seem ready to latch on to any loose teet, ala the Katrina aftermath.. *One
of the topics of conversation is what this will cost the taxpayers, separate and
apart from the actual clean-up and actual damage cost. *For example, if tourists
don't come to this area because of fears "stoked" by the media rather than
actual effects of the spill, who pays, if anyone? *And some of the requests to
BP are beyond the pale - one local tourism board asked BP for 7.5 mil USD _a
month_, to last until 3 years after the spill is fully cleaned up, for
advertising (with a projection that it would be at least 350 mil). *I'd also
heard that certain members had suggested a straight "trust" setup with BP paying
a flat 250 mil. *The organization's budget before the spill was something like
500k a month.

Anyway, for those that are interested, there are lots of maps, reports, etc.
collected and consolidated he

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

And if anyone was planning a trip anywhere down this way, or know anyone who is,
I'd offer that they need to ignore sources like CNN, etc. and find out exactly
what effects, if any, the area of the visit is actually experiencing. *Thus far,
about the only thing "tourist-y" truly affected is any fishing plans in federal
waters. *The local coverage is almost surreal - teams in Tyvek suits scouring
the beaches while folks swim and frolic in the background:

http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_s...vid_8800.shtml

TC,
R

JUST when you think the absolute depths of abject stupidity have been
plumbed........



g.

On Jun 7, 5:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something,
well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it
there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from
Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_
down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there
were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the
rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about
Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at
sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's
impossible to say what the final results will be.

The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate
picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that
Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand
Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively
none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the
southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other
misleading info contained the

From the site:

"...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..."

The facts from NOAA:

"From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated
spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and
another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded
dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach,
we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil
prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible
evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for
the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased
detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike
in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or
debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water."

For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the
year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to
the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March).
Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the
recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural
mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and
finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown.

Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if
reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard
folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be
"Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a
great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational,
reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for
rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any
attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone
in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to
do the same, would also be in order. *

TC,
R

It's a gift to be simple.

g.

On Jun 7, 3:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something,
well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it
there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from
Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_
down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there
were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the
rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about
Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at
sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's
impossible to say what the final results will be.

The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate
picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that
Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand
Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively
none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the
southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other
misleading info contained the

From the site:

"...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..."

The facts from NOAA:

"From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated
spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and
another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded
dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach,
we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil
prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible
evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for
the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased
detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike
in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or
debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water."

For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the
year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to
the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March).
Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the
recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural
mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and
finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown.

Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if
reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard
folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be
"Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a
great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational,
reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for
rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any
attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone
in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to
do the same, would also be in order. *

TC,
R

Oh bull****. All the asshole/irresponsible Southern rich-clown money
that has been poured into wrecking the Republican moderates has left
the Gulf Coast with a Congressional representation of mental midgets.
ALL of them are blaming Obama and they are exactly the radical
whackjob crowd you've supported.

And now, the beneficent Richard, self assessed master manipulator of
Orwell speak, offers up his denial/media conspiracy theory, wrapped in
an un-needed "pardon" for Obama. Right. More ****en into the wind.

How's that horse pucky about the bio-safe dispersants worken for ya?
Given up on that canard have ya?

Dave

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:09:58 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:

On Jun 7, 3:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something,
well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it
there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from
Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_
down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there
were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the
rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about
Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at
sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's
impossible to say what the final results will be.

The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate
picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that
Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand
Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively
none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the
southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other
misleading info contained the

From the site:

"...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..."

The facts from NOAA:

"From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated
spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and
another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded
dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach,
we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil
prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible
evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for
the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased
detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike
in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or
debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water."

For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the
year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to
the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March).
Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the
recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural
mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and
finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown.

Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if
reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard
folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be
"Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a
great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational,
reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for
rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any
attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone
in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to
do the same, would also be in order. *

TC,
R

Oh bull****. All the asshole/irresponsible Southern rich-clown money
that has been poured into wrecking the Republican moderates has left
the Gulf Coast with a Congressional representation of mental midgets.
ALL of them are blaming Obama and they are exactly the radical
whackjob crowd you've supported.

And now, the beneficent Richard, self assessed master manipulator of
Orwell speak, offers up his denial/media conspiracy theory, wrapped in
an un-needed "pardon" for Obama. Right. More ****en into the wind.

How's that horse pucky about the bio-safe dispersants worken for ya?
Given up on that canard have ya?

Dave

Well, he might need it now, after making an ass of himself on "Today" this
morning...he looked like Fred Armisen trying to do a Damon Wayans' bit...or you
doing someone who knows what they are talking about...

HTH,
R
....I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...