Before I sign off I’d like to say, Mr. Butter, that it has been a pleasure debating with you. Come to think of it, we’ve been arguing for long enough that I can probably call you Andrew. While we don’t agree on every point, I admire your Renaissance style of argument, particularly your insights into the nature of cluelessness. Best to you and yours, and many thanks to Public Square for having me.

I do feel I should put in a word of defense for Mr. Abbott of Atlantis fame, who I believe deserves the title of “whistleblower” and maybe “victim.” When BP failed to address the concerns he raised most courageously, he eventually did go to the Mineral Management Agency. To date they have failed to respond to the safety concerns he brought before them first in 2009 and again this year.

“Given the quantity of records and need for MMS to focus on responding to the Deepwater Horizon accident, the investigation is only approximately 10 percent complete,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The investigation should take days, not years.

But I was most interested in that final point you made about the importance of being able to plead clueless. Since motivation is hard to prove in most any situation, “clueless” can serve as a convenient cover for, oh, say a line like this: “But we thought there were weapons of mass destruction…”

BP was not clueless. They had clues. Lots of them. Clues that they systematically and strategically ignored as part of a cost-cutting calculation. Of course in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it has become evident that they grossly miscalculated. So maybe I will give you clueless, only not as you originally intended it.