Who is to blame for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

I'm puzzled and rather irritated by the constant stream of outrage from America, from its president to its ordinary citizens, as though they were not themselves to blame for that fact that some companies are drilling for oil in the seas off the coast of America. I mean, if you want to drive gas-guzzling cars, and fly everywhere from state to state, and use fossil fuels to power your air conditioning and heat your water for your daily shower, this is how your needs are supplied. And if you are demanding that oil be drilled off shore, then you are taking the risk (as with all such enterprises) that there will be accidents that cause this kind of spillage.
So what then? Are you prepared to pay more so that the companies that do the drilling can be already prepared, at great expense, for immediately dealing with any kind of accident no matter how rare and unlikely? How much more are you prepared to pay for your gas and air fuel to have that?
Or are you prepared to convert to wind farms and go by train instead of cars and planes? Who ever heard of wind spillages? (And don't tell me Nuclear is the way, because I can tell you that nuclear spillages are MUCH worse).
It's a matter of lifestyle choices isn't it? If you make the right lifestyle choices those sea birds won't be soaked in oil because no one will be demanding oil from the bottom of the sea. If you don't make the lifestyle choices, then don't blame the company that is working to give you what you are asked for at prices you were prepared to pay. They don't do it for fun. They do it because you pay them to do it.

What does it mean to be green?

It means that when you could do something using a machine, or you could do it just as well or better without using the machine, you do it without using the machine.

Automatic doors

There's a way into our local Shopping Centre (the nearest way in if you start from our house) which has two sets of doors, one at the outer end of the passage and one at the inner end.

Actually there are four sets of doors, two at the outer end and two at the inner end, so if there are a lot of people coming and going the ones going in can go through one set of double doors and the ones going out can go through another set and they don't get into collisions. It's sensible, on the whole, to keep left, which is the normal way of doing these things in this country.

The doors on the right as you go in are automatic doors, at both ends of the corridor. The double doors on the left are ordinary doors, such that you can push them from either side. It's a lot quicker to go through the ones that you push, because you don't have to wait for them to sense you and then open for you. The automatic ones are particularly irritating when you're approaching from the side where they open into your face.

There's also another reason why it's a lot quicker and easier to go through the non-automatic doors. It's because everyone else is trying to squeeze through the automatic ones.

Young and old, fit and unfit, slim and obese, the lot. They would prefer to jam themselves into a bottle neck with all the rest of the lazy bunch of chavs rather than push a door open.

In fact some of them stand outside the non-automatic doors and smoke, and look most surprised when someone (i.e. me) comes out that way. I do so habitually, partly because I think a little exercise to the muscles of the arms, chest and abdomen will be good for me. It's not much, but if you do it regularly I presume it helps to keeps them in trim.

So there are three advantages to going through the doors that you push: (1) speed, (2) not having to negotiate a way through a crowd of fat and unattractive specimens of humanity, (3) improved fitness.

A fourth advantage is that you use your own renewable energy, not the electricity that powers the mechanism of the doors.

And why would you prefer to go through the automatic doors, assuming you're not in a wheel chair or walking with a stick? Because you're lazy? Any other reason?