Bush Nearly Blows Himself Up (Not Kidding)

[Lord J Esq]

"When the President of the United States almost immolates himself through sheer stupidity."

Explain when he did that. He picked up an electric cord. That was all he did.

You're saying that he almost blew himself up because he could have put it too close to the hydrogen, but that's an unfounded assumption.

An assumption, yes. Unfounded...no. For one thing, this is George W. Bush we're talking about. The man has a well-documented history of being an idiot. More to the point, he has a well-documented history of being plain dumb. And inadvertently plugging a cord into the wrong outlet is something that you'd have to be plain dumb to do.

The cord was lying near the wrong outlet. The president had picked it up and was going to put it in. Mulally recognized it and stopped him. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't going to. As to whether or not his action would have resulted in an explosion had he been able to complete it, I couldn't say. Neither could you, for that matter, given the spare details of the story. But Mulally was there, and, vis-a-vis the president's credibility, Mulally's actions indicate face-saving at best, and live-saving at worst.

If I am reaching, it is in the degree of just how "almost" he got to blowing himself up. And I grant that; I wouldn't argue it with you.

You're reaching too, mack, and I'll tell you whose arm is out over the hydrogen.

Would you like to be ridiculed for all the bad choices you could have made, but never had the chance to, based simply on the shared assumption that it was what you would have inevitably done?

He's the president,. Like it or not, he gets more scrutiny and is held to a higher standard than others. Do I think that's fair? I didn't make a claim on that either way. In posting this story to the Compendium, I'm just exploiting the "higher standard" reality to take a shot at America's worst president. More honorably, you might say I was doing others here the service of pointing out what a dipshit stupid fool he is.

The problem here is that people are speaking of a hypothetical situation so matter of factly. Nobody is thinking critically about who wrote the article, whether or not it would have been dangerous or just looked embarrassing if he tried plugging it in the wrong spot, and what the claim that he almost blew himself up is even founded on.

I don't get how you can accuse me of reaching and then write that. You've got zero facts available to back you up; you're just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it, I guess. Me, I've got two facts: One, Mulally himself broke protocol (in a diplomatic fashion) to prevent the president from taking an action that he almost certainly otherwise would have taken. Two, hydrogen is a highly flammable substance and one spark is all it takes to have a very bad day.

From those two direct facts, I can infer a third: Playing with electricity near hydrogen without knowing what you are doing can lead to an explosion. How close did Bush get to that? Maybe not very close at all. Maybe closer than the pimples on your ass. I don't know and couldn't say. What I can and do say is that he put himself (and those around him, including the vice president) in a dangerous situation because of his ignorance. It's just a quick jump of the diction to turn that into the word "almost" (or "nearly"), as in "almost blew himself up."

They're just glancing over the content and assuming the president nearly blew himself up, but was swiftly saved by someone they can relate to as a fellow intellectual.

Perhaps the story writer was being sensational. But the reporters were there talking with Mulally, and know more than you or I do. Given the strong wording of the story, if the reporter was indeed sensationalizing, they were also probably lying outright. That would expose them to legal liabilities. The Detroit News is a legitimate news reporting operation, and knows more about journalistic ethics than you do. So do I, for that matter, given my experience in newspapers.

Your second claim, that the argument made by me or the story as reported originally is somehow biased so as to praise Mulally as a "fellow intellectual" to Bush's blind fool, is bullshit. Don't waste my time.

Hell, I bet there wouldn't even have been any danger if he had plugged it into the wrong spot.

Filed under: Unsubstantiated Hearsay. Next...

For one thing, hydrogen is only dangerous when mixed with oxygen, and even when it burns it's not as dangerous as, say, gasoline.

I learned through experience, Ramsus, the importance of not pretending to be an expert when one is, in fact, not an expert.

This is why I hate the media, and why I hate media followers even more.

Whoa there, pard'ner! You should be smarter than to fit two humongously stupid prejudices into one small sentence...at least in my company. I don't think you even know what "the media" are. If you do, then you just weren't thinking when you dropped your H-bomb on them. (That's H for "hate," yo.) For all the Fox Newses out there, for all the infotainment, celebrity gossip, fear-mongering, sex and violence, and for all the half-truths, lies by omission, biased reports, and all the rest of it, the media bring news to the world. Quite frankly, anyone who condemns the media outright is a fool. All that's missing is for you to use the cute little "MSM" and your conversion to the Dumb Side will be complete.

And if you hate "media followers even more" than you do the media, then you're an even bigger fool. Awareness is everything in the measure of a person, and included in that is a functional knowledge of current events, so that one can interact with the world in an informed, intelligent way. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were talking about people who watch shows like "Entertainment Tonight" or "Hannity & Colmes."

~~~
Finally, turning it all over in my head, the only thing I can give you is this: Ford probably wouldn't have engineered a car that can be accidentally blown up. That, I think, is your best argument. It's also a reach, because even the most conventional car is lethal in its use and maintenance to an inexperienced person, and, moreover, in light of further information we don't know much about the particular model of car that Bush interacted with.

I'm afraid your hand is pretty weak. You might be able to subdue Kyronea, but I won't be so easily blown over by a loud argument.

[cupn00dles]

For one thing, hydrogen is only dangerous when mixed with oxygen, and even when it burns it's not as dangerous as, say, gasoline.

I learned through experience, Ramsus, the importance of not pretending to be an expert when one is, in fact, not an expert.

Hehehe. While reading that, a funny thought of "a gasoline star" or "how long would the Sun have lasted was it fueled by gasoline instead of hydrogen" ocurred me.

[Ramsus]

Hell, I bet there wouldn't even have been any danger if he had plugged it into the wrong spot.

Filed under: Unsubstantiated Hearsay. Next...

For one thing, hydrogen is only dangerous when mixed with oxygen, and even when it burns it's not as dangerous as, say, gasoline.

I learned through experience, Ramsus, the importance of not pretending to be an expert when one is, in fact, not an expert.

Mind explaining this? Every source I've ever come across concerning hydrogen tanks in cars suggests that they're quite idiot proofed, so much so that some sparks wouldn't cause anything to happen, yet alone fires or bullets.

And how would hydrogen stored in a sealed tank with no leaks explode if there's no oxygen in the tank? Even if you have sparks? If there's a slight leak, wouldn't it just shoot invisible flames at the point of leakage, instead of making the tank itself explode (kind of like a bunsen burner)?

You're the expert. I'm just a guy with some basic -- and rather rusty -- college chemistry knowledge. If you really wanted me to understand your viewpoint, you'd explain this key element of your argument instead of just slapping me in the face and gloating. At the very least, you could throw some numbers and equations out there, then some estimates.

Honestly, I'd be more suspicious of a reporter simply misinterpreting what someone meant. Unlike you, I took Journalism in college, and journalists aren't exactly the brightest bunch, especially when it comes to statistics and natural science.

That, and I believe the president trying to plug an electric cord into the wrong spot on a car would be damage enough, simply because it'd make not just the president look stupid, but the design of the car. That's reason enough for even me to break protocol. After all, he looks stupid, your design looks stupid, and you risk losing some possible government-backed support for a few years.

[Kyronea]

You might be able to subdue Kyronea, but I won't be so easily blown over by a loud argument.

I was just bowing to what appeared to be superior knowledge of the physics and engineering involved with the car and of journalists. Please do not mistake that to mean I bow down in the face of loud blustering arguments as that is an insult to my intelligence. (Though please don't take that the wrong way...I am not offended so much as I am merely correcting an incorrect assumption about my character.)

For that matter, I did, in fact, presume that by the media and media followers he was referring to sensationalism, infotainment, Fox News, and the like, and agreed according to that presumption. When it comes to normal news I agree whole-heartedly with you, Lord J.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Finally, turning it all over in my head, the only thing I can give you is this: Ford probably wouldn't have engineered a car that can be accidentally blown up.

I beg to differ.

[Lord J Esq]

I'm not going to do your homework for you, Ramsus. Neither, though, do you have to take my word for anything. If you don't want to do your homework either, then I'd say Radical Dreamer's timely wit has put a satisfying period mark at the end of this little discussion. =)

[Ramsus]

I'm not going to do your homework for you, Ramsus. Neither, though, do you have to take my word for anything. If you don't want to do your homework either, then I'd say Radical Dreamer's timely wit has put a satisfying period mark at the end of this little discussion. =)

I've done what little homework I can without making a list of contacts and doing some real reporting or going back to college for a few years, and it all seems to suggest that the situation would have been highly unlikely to result in any sort of explosion. How much more do you want me to do to see your point of view?

I mean, if your answer requires you to do actual homework, then I'd say your expertise is in jack shit.

After all, isn't the whole hydrogen thing the main reason you bother standing by an unattributed claim in a casually written and fairly buried "Business Insider" article to begin with?

Hell, that piece wasn't even intended as hard news. It's obviously meant to be a soft piece -- lighthearted in tone -- with the self-immolation bit a little exaggerated for effect. That's why I'm so ready to bet that there was no real danger.

The reason I want you to explain yourself is that it really frightens me that you'd pull this article out of context and take it so literally -- seemingly without a second thought.

[Lord J Esq]

It "really frightens" you? Do I detect a rhetorical flourish? I'll settle for that.

Safe hydrogen storage is a challenge; the more so for tanks that are going to be moving around and exposed to the kinds of dangers as one would find on the road. Compressed hydrogen storage is orders of magnitude more dangerous, and demanding, on top of the rest of it.

I'm serious about not doing your homework for you, though. It's cheap of you, albeit clever, to try and get me to do your work as well as mine. And don't come to me with, "But Josh...

How much more do you want me to do to see your point of view?

I think you would have come to "see" it already if you were at all interested in doing so. You're not. You've picked an angle you want to argue, and you'll run it into the ground if you have to. I'm content to stick around so long as things are productive, but I see the ground rushing up to meet us and so this is where I disembark. I've been in long arguments with stubborn folk many times before, and my experience has usually been that, the more elaborate the explanations, and the more technical or intricate the argumentative thrusts, the less likely anybody is to persuade anybody else. People who begin an argument prepared to change their opinion typically open the pathway for that to happen long before it gets to, for instance, a detailed discussion of the integrity of pressurized hydrogen storage aboard automobiles.

I don't much care if you agree with me or not. I don't feel the need to win or be told I'm right. I've given you all I care to give you on behalf of persuading you. If that isn't enough for you, then oh well. I'll leave you with this:

Hell, that piece wasn't even intended as hard news. It's obviously meant to be a soft piece -- lighthearted in tone -- with the self-immolation bit a little exaggerated for effect. That's why I'm so ready to bet that there was no real danger.

You are framing the story--spinning it. A bit of "lighthearted" goofery, eh? Sure. And maybe President Bush came within an inch of killing himself and everyone present. The truth, while uncertain, is probably somewhere in the middle but closer to the latter overall. Also known as a "close call." Like when Bush falls off his bike but doesn't break his neck. I suppose you would want to call that a "lighthearted" spill.

Maybe I'm being too hard on you. Here's something easier than doing your homework on hydrogen: Track down the make and model of the car, show me the hydrogen interface, make sure there were no other extenuating circumstances that could have reasonably provoked Mulally's urgent response, and if the hydrogen is idiot-proof and nothing else interesting was happening, I'll write off this story as fluff.

In other words, double-check the story. That's what the journalist would have done, had the story been ethically reported.

[Romana]

Someone has a grudge...? Oh dear.

Sorry to nitpick, but what's with the half-transparency on the door, ship and characters?

RIP 2DZeality.

[Ramsus]

It "really frightens" you? Do I detect a rhetorical flourish? I'll settle for that.

Safe hydrogen storage is a challenge; the more so for tanks that are going to be moving around and exposed to the kinds of dangers as one would find on the road. Compressed hydrogen storage is orders of magnitude more dangerous, and demanding, on top of the rest of it.

I'm serious about not doing your homework for you, though. It's cheap of you, albeit clever, to try and get me to do your work as well as mine. And don't come to me with, "But Josh...

How much more do you want me to do to see your point of view?

I think you would have come to "see" it already if you were at all interested in doing so. You're not. You've picked an angle you want to argue, and you'll run it into the ground if you have to. I'm content to stick around so long as things are productive, but I see the ground rushing up to meet us and so this is where I disembark. I've been in long arguments with stubborn folk many times before, and my experience has usually been that, the more elaborate the explanations, and the more technical or intricate the argumentative thrusts, the less likely anybody is to persuade anybody else. People who begin an argument prepared to change their opinion typically open the pathway for that to happen long before it gets to, for instance, a detailed discussion of the integrity of pressurized hydrogen storage aboard automobiles.

I don't much care if you agree with me or not. I don't feel the need to win or be told I'm right. I've given you all I care to give you on behalf of persuading you. If that isn't enough for you, then oh well. I'll leave you with this:

Hell, that piece wasn't even intended as hard news. It's obviously meant to be a soft piece -- lighthearted in tone -- with the self-immolation bit a little exaggerated for effect. That's why I'm so ready to bet that there was no real danger.

You are framing the story--spinning it. A bit of "lighthearted" goofery, eh? Sure. And maybe President Bush came within an inch of killing himself and everyone present. The truth, while uncertain, is probably somewhere in the middle but closer to the latter overall. Also known as a "close call." Like when Bush falls off his bike but doesn't break his neck. I suppose you would want to call that a "lighthearted" spill.

Maybe I'm being too hard on you. Here's something easier than doing your homework on hydrogen: Track down the make and model of the car, show me the hydrogen interface, make sure there were no other extenuating circumstances that could have reasonably provoked Mulally's urgent response, and if the hydrogen is idiot-proof and nothing else interesting was happening, I'll write off this story as fluff.

In other words, double-check the story. That's what the journalist would have done, had the story been ethically reported.

What the hell, have you ever taken a journalism class? I'm not spinning it, you hard-headed ass. If anything, you are. I'm just trying to help you see the original context of the story, which is a funny insider take on the president, not hard news. Such stories always have a little room for sensationalism, and the self-immolation bit obviously falls into commentary by the article writers. It's just a draw to get the reader interested in the following two paragraphs, not a well-researched stanced backed by hard facts or attributable opinions.

But whatever. If you can't apply a critical eye to what you read, just because it agrees with what you assume would be the case, then it's your loss. I'm not going to waste days researching hydrogen tanks and Ford prototypes to make a point, especially since even if it were completely safe, you'd still probably fail to see the article for what it is.

[Lord J Esq]

On second thought, I deleted what I just wrote. I will say this, though: You're too abrasive. You don't back down when you're wrong, Ramsus. You just start talking smack. Good luck with that.

If your final argument is that it was a soft news story, then you've got nothing to back it up. The events of the story paint a different picture than you do. You have repeatedly ignored my concession that I don't know "almost," and instead aimed for a victory you couldn't possibly win--for all your claims of expertise. I don't care if you took college journalism. I edited my college paper and work at a metro daily even today. I don't care if you took college chemistry. I majored in aerospace engineering. Stop trying to impress me, because in this case you ain't gonna.

Other than that, I rest my case. That's all I've got to say. Oh, except: Go plug an electrical cord into a hydrogen tank. =)

(Edited for style.)

[Kyronea]

...

What the hell is wrong with you two? Why are you getting so upset over one little issue about a freaking hydrogen car? You're acting as if your careers are on the line here or something, and frankly both of you are stubbornly holding opinions you just won't let go. I would suggest you both calm down...arguing like this is not a good debate strategy.

[ZeaLitY]

...

What the hell is wrong with you two? Why are you getting so upset over one little issue about a freaking hydrogen car? You're acting as if your careers are on the line here or something, and frankly both of you are stubbornly holding opinions you just won't let go. I would suggest you both calm down...arguing like this is not a good debate strategy.

It is simple. For conversation and certain expectations of quality, there must be outs. When there are no outs, it is easy to escalate.

[Ramsus]

On second thought, I deleted what I just wrote. I will say this, though: You're too abrasive. You don't back down when you're wrong, Ramsus. You just start talking smack. Good luck with that.

If your final argument is that it was a soft news story, then you've got nothing to back it up. The events of the story paint a different picture than you do. You have repeatedly ignored my concession that I don't know "almost," and instead aimed for a victory you couldn't possibly win--for all your claims of expertise. I don't care if you took college journalism. I edited my college paper and work at a metro daily even today. I don't care if you took college chemistry. I majored in aerospace engineering. Stop trying to impress me, because in this case you ain't gonna.

Other than that, I rest my case. That's all I've got to say. Oh, except: Go plug an electrical cord into a hydrogen tank. =)

(Edited for style.)

Why should I back down when I can't see why I'm wrong and you won't make it clear how your interpretation is somehow better based on your supposedly greater domain knowledge?

That's like finding out you might be wearing your pants wrong, but the asshole who says he knows more about wearing pants won't tell you how to wear them properly. I mean, I took the basic course on wearing pants, and nothing I remember learning contradicts the way I wear them. So what am I missing? If I'm really missing something, it's worth finding out, so of course I'm going to become abrasive if Mr. pants genius doesn't bother explaining anything.

If none of the hydrogen has leaked and mixed into the air in the vicinity, then I have no problem sticking an electric cord in the hydrogen tank, especially one designed to withstand flame and bullet. There's no oxygen in there, so what'll the hydrogen combust with?

From what little I've learned, the worst that could happen is the hydrogen near the entrance gets ignited and burns upwards, and that's only if the tank is actually open to the air at that point. Maybe if I'm really close, I get my arms and face burned, but it'd be far from a catastrophically fatal explosion.

More than that, I don't believe any of that would happen because the tank would likely be sealed with some interface preventing air and hydrogen from mixing in the first place. Even if it's just a cap, it's enough to where the president wouldn't have had a chance to get it off and stick the cable inside (so I wouldn't go that far either). That's why I think Mullally was mostly protecting the President from a good deal of embarrassment.

Also, I might clarify what I mean by media and media followers. Media followers are those individuals who read the news for the sake of having something to talk about, not caring a dime about who wrote it and why, or whether or not it's really true. These individuals aren't informed; they're brainwashed. It should be obvious why I hate them. When I say the media, then, I mean the mainstream news organizations in the United States, namely TV news, and the individuals working for them, and I don't hate them for what they do, just how they do it.


As for the news story, mind describing what kind of story it really is then, based on your long  experience working in the actual industry? If my perspective really is all fucked up, meaning I'm literally insane, I'd like to know about it.

[Ramsus]

...

What the hell is wrong with you two? Why are you getting so upset over one little issue about a freaking hydrogen car? You're acting as if your careers are on the line here or something, and frankly both of you are stubbornly holding opinions you just won't let go. I would suggest you both calm down...arguing like this is not a good debate strategy.

This isn't a flimsy formal debate with goals of winning some judge's points. This is a duel of perspectives. Sometimes these things get a little heated; it's only natural. I'll save my apologies and concessions for after things cool down and my vision returns, because I know if I push this as far as it goes, there's something to be gained from the experience.