According to reporting on NPR the fertilizer plant was built first. Many residents are now questioning why the town built so close to a dangerous factory.
Yet, none of them question why they bought a house so close to a dangerous factory.
According to reporting on NPR the fertilizer plant was built first. Many residents are now questioning why the town built so close to a dangerous factory.
Yet, none of them question why they bought a house so close to a dangerous factory.
If the plant had been following regulations, it wouldn't have been that dangerous. They essentially ignored regulations that required chemical reporting, which would have triggered inspections and safety measures, and thereby turned the factory into a giant, unpredictable bomb.
The plant did do the proper reporting... To the state authorities. From the reporting I am hearing the state did not properly inform the federal authorities.
The plant did do the proper reporting... To the state authorities. From the reporting I am hearing the state did not properly inform the federal authorities.
Yeah. And there are Federal safety requirements they also ignored along with the reporting requirements. If you're not complying with both State and Federal regs, then you're not complying with regs. Period.
Also they had something like 1350 times the AN they were rated for. At that level they should have been reporting to the DHS, not just the state and OSHA. >_<
If anything, we know that we can count of Gov. Rick Perry to handle the situation.
Poorly.
I actually do trust Perry to do something. I don't trust him to understand economics or foreign policy or things like that, but I do trust him to protect his people from accidents and disasters like this.
If anything, we know that we can count of Gov. Rick Perry to handle the situation.
Poorly.
I actually do trust Perry to do something. I don't trust him to understand economics or foreign policy or things like that, but I do trust him to protect his people from accidents and disasters like this.
I also trust Perry to somehow screw it up too. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
I can't think of him being against federal aid for when A) people get hurt by random chance (ie not more complicated things like poverty) and it benefits a company (the fertilizer manufacturer). EDIT: x2 Ninja'd. @Ro. Totes agree with Dragonmaster Lou, though. I trust him to try, not sure how well he'll do.
I mean no offense, but Rick Perry is a fucking joke. This is a man who prayed for rain during a drought, instead of trying to find ways to mitigate it's effects on farmers. And he thinks global warming is a myth. -_- I highly doubt my governor will do anything worthwhile to prevent something like this explosion ever happening again. I also expect a half-hearted response to the aftermath of the explosion as well.
The market will decide how best to handle this explosion. If the market feels that companies such as this shouldn't be allowed to have random explosions, then it will stop purchasing their products.
The market will decide how best to handle this explosion. If the market feels that companies such as this shouldn't be allowed to have random explosions, then it will stop purchasing their products.
I will buy all of their products because I fucking love explosions.
Okay, I've got no problem with the idea of using a drone to track down potentially armed and dangerous suspects. I'd rather have a drone than a living, breathing cop doing it -- especially since a cop could possibly panic and prematurely fire his/her weapon in a life threatening situation, human nature being what it is. However, said drone should be able to hover and/or loiter over the suspect and have a loud speaker in order to give the suspect orders to drop any weapons and surrender.
If the suspect then opens fire on the drone, well, then things get trickier. I suppose I'd be somewhat okay with using lethal force against a suspect opening fire on the drone, but it still feels "wrong" to me. Using lethal force to defend oneself is okay, but if the whole point of a drone is to keep human life safe, then it becomes much, much more questionable. A drone equipped with a taser or some other non-lethal weapon to subdue a suspect who is actively firing a weapon of some sort would be preferable. Equipping it with some sort of capture net or similar device to restrain a suspect, firing a weapon or not, until human law enforcement arrives to finish the arrest, would also be a good idea.
Remote control killbots are just advanced bullets.
I have zero problem with them being used in any situation where a police officer would correctly use a regular bullet.
Well, if a police officer can only use a firearm if someones life is directly threatened then that's fine. I just find it unlikely that those situations are going to come up all that often for a drone. In the vast majority of instances wherein a police officer is using his side arm it's because someone is threatening him directly, if the drone has replaced the officer then most of those situations no longer become ones where lethal force is necessary.
I'd rather see taser drones with pepper spray and beanbag rounds first. Once those are used and implemented properly, we can see about putting lethal armaments on them.
Wait, wasn't he the one who did a 12 hour filibuster or something against it?
13 hour, but yep. The whole point of his epic-length crazyperson rant was his fear of the government using Drones to spy on and attack US citizens. And, to add to the hypocrisy, not a month before that, he was advocating using drones to patrol and enforce US borders - because it's okay to use drones on people, as long as they're brown and foreign.
Remote control killbots are just advanced bullets.
I have zero problem with them being used in any situation where a police officer would correctly use a regular bullet.
I do, but it's more of a "right tool for the job" thing than any particular objection to drones. Most situations where an armed officer is going to be drawing on someone isn't a situation that drones would be appropriate for. However, other incidents like - for example - the Boston Bomber manhunt, that's a situation where drones are not only useful, but extremely advantageous.
It's already been establish, though, that I agree on the point that there is very little difference between killing someone with a drone, and killing someone with a bullet, or an airstrike, or any other ranged weapon technology, at least from a moral standpoint.
Comments
Poorly.
EDIT: x2 Ninja'd. @Ro. Totes agree with Dragonmaster Lou, though. I trust him to try, not sure how well he'll do.
Because liberty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-drones_n_3140850.html
I don't want to live on this planet any more.
If the suspect then opens fire on the drone, well, then things get trickier. I suppose I'd be somewhat okay with using lethal force against a suspect opening fire on the drone, but it still feels "wrong" to me. Using lethal force to defend oneself is okay, but if the whole point of a drone is to keep human life safe, then it becomes much, much more questionable. A drone equipped with a taser or some other non-lethal weapon to subdue a suspect who is actively firing a weapon of some sort would be preferable. Equipping it with some sort of capture net or similar device to restrain a suspect, firing a weapon or not, until human law enforcement arrives to finish the arrest, would also be a good idea.
I have zero problem with them being used in any situation where a police officer would correctly use a regular bullet.
I'd rather see taser drones with pepper spray and beanbag rounds first. Once those are used and implemented properly, we can see about putting lethal armaments on them.
It's already been establish, though, that I agree on the point that there is very little difference between killing someone with a drone, and killing someone with a bullet, or an airstrike, or any other ranged weapon technology, at least from a moral standpoint.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/us-female-sailor-beats-dubai-rapist-bus-driver-sub/
via Reddit