ijusluvit, I apologize that I didn't explain my opinions better and you misunderstood my answer. Since you said you are a big fan of capitalism and cited your objections to fascism, I wrongly assumed you understood my response.

In a similar political discussion with a friend and a similar misunderstanding that kept going in circles with us both thinking we were getting our points across. We finally realized it was a left brain/right brain (no pun intended) personality thing with how we see things and answer questions.

What I am saying is the problem I have with the federal government involvement of these things is just that; federal government involvement and control means less control on the local level.

It's easier to see something and understand the immediate repercussions when you are closer to the source. Whether the issue is lending to someone buying a home in your neighborhood, arresting and processing someone through the courts system, schools in your neighborhood, businesses in your neighborhood or someone campaigning in your neighbor.

So with that said, for me to explain my objections with the BP issue, I have to be wordy, so please bear with me.

I could easily say it has never been legally proved that "BP" did anything criminal. BP wasn't the only corporation involved in the drilling. There were individual people on that rig that may or may not have been involved in criminality.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financial and the criminality aspects. Regarding the good faith fund setup by BP and the manner it was initiated, Obama simply bypassed the legal process set up in our Constitution. This will come back to do legal injuries to the people in the Gulf with grievances, true of false grievances, when it comes their day in court. That is my opinion and only time will tell on that one.

Anyway....

The first thing that bothers me is the reason the company was drilling so far offshore at an unprecedented depth in the first place. This is a good example of what happens when the federal government is in charge. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy." Earlier history of similar controversies over states rights has led us to where we are today with the federal government overseeing the Mines, Minerals and Energy in this country.

There are federal regulatory agencies who oversee the drilling of offshore oil. Isn't it their job to assure that the drilling is done properly? One of these agencies is the Minerals Services Agency. This agency oversees the leases and the regulation of the rigs. Does that seem like a conflict of interest?

I believe the blowout and the failures in the automatic shutoff valves happened because of the depths (over 18,000 feet) the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling. The temperatures and pressures are unpredictable below 10,000 feet. The depth hindered BP's robotic subs with efforts to shut off the valves and stop the leaks.

We all saw the confusion and wasted time with determining who was "in charge," who had authority to do various things or not do various things from booms to skimming. In the midst of all the insanity, even BP saw the importance, even if it was only on the surface without the true understanding of discussion of local level, to have someone from the area representing their company.

How many times did a local judge make a ruling and say to lift the moratoriums imposed on the federal levels and how many times did the federal government challenge that order? These are the kinds of things that make people question the far away, out of touch federal governments true objectives.

It was a blame game with the government's involvement and threats becoming nothing more than posturing for the sake of politics and policy to pursue their agenda and increase taxes. Eric Holder went to the Gulf to investigate criminality before the disaster was even close to being under control.

If this has been confined to a local problem from the time that drilling permits and regulation of leasing even started, it would have been easier to handle.

But here is my biggest concern with the entire BP fiasco. BP is people. A corporation is people. People on every level of management, but people nonetheless. There were people on that rig that may or may not have made mistakes. Tony Hayward wasn't on the rig.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financially and criminality. Obama simple bypassed this process set up in our Constitution.

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works.

Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.