Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 289
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 8 of 33    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
We cannot take for grated the idea that giving government agencies power over an industry eliminates or mitigates greed. We need to use evidence of real wold examples to demonstrate that the outcomes we desire are improved after an agency was created to control the industry.


So, let's do this. One poster mentioned the railroads:

It is a historical fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission was created in the 1800s to control the rail industry in order to reduce rates, increase competition, increase passenger travel, etc.

That was the idea. The theory. The intention.

What actually happened?

The rail industry took the ICC over and used it to control the trucking industry. They instituted ICC licences that enormously increased prices, made trucking less competitive with railroads, and furthered the monopolistic practices of the rail industry. This is historical fact and cannot be denied.

Outcomes worsened after the ICC was instituted to control the railroads, not improved. Why? Because instead of the rail industry requiring to compete in the market, they took over the government agency that was created to oersee them and used the RULE OF LAW to dominate the industry rather than to compete in it.

This is what actually happened.


And after the ICC's powers over the airlines were severely cut back in the 1970s, airline travel improved immensely! Costs went down. Travel times went down. Safety went up. Even Ralph Nader admits that deregulation was a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation




The hypothesis that 'industry takes over government agencies' is not some wackjob theory. Its not something people like me think up to support an ideal concept of economics. There is enormous evidence behind it.

The only reason I know about it is because I read economists and historians who write about this stuff. Experts in the fields who take the time to dig up and analyize historical data. Who see what actually happened. The data they find overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis:


Not just some nut-job fantasy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture


This current Gulf leak is another example staring us in the face. The Department of the Interior, who has complete oversight over the portions of the Gulf owned by the US federal government, granted BP and other oil companies a categorical exclusion from liability for the express purpose of encouraging offshore drilling and to, literally, make it legal for these companies to damage others' property without paying for reparations. Why? Did you vote for any politician who wanted this? Did you vote to allow this? Did you want BP, Exxon, and Shell to have limited liability in offshore drilling? Of course not. The industry wanted it. And they got what they wanted by paying off a few regulators.



Yes, corporations - like everyone else - act in their own self-interest. It's not like this is being denied. It is fully understood and is precisely why it is harmful to have the state intervene in the economy with agencies like these. Why? Because time and time again, we see the industry capture the agencies meant to control it. And once they do that, they use have STATE power. They can write laws in their favor, use the courts to compete rather than production and innovation. They can stay at the top of an industry by passing laws to limit competition rather than having to actually compete with competition.

Again, the evidence for this is staggering.

We can't just presuppose the notion that giving the state power leads to better outcomes.We have to use the scientific method if we want to pursue truth. That means doing our homework, stepping away from theory and actually reading history. Looking back to see what actually happened. If you do this, you find:

The FCC secures the big television networks into a cartel.
The FDA secures the big pharmaceutical companies into a cartel.
The SEC, Federal Reserve System, and other finance agencies secure the biggest banks into a cartel.
The BAR association secures the existing establishment of lawyers into a cartel.
The AMA secures the existing network of doctors and hospitals into a cartel.

...the list goes on and on.

These are all heavily regulated industries. And they are among the industries we as consumers are the most dissatisfied with. The ones where the outcomes are worst.
The industries that are the least government-controlled, such as consumer electronics, internet communications, are among the industries we are the most satisfied with. Where competition is highest and prices are lowest.

Again, this is not mere hypothesis. I don't support freeing our economy because of some utopian ideal. I know full-well that humans are not perfect. I advocate freeing the markets because the evidence is overwhelming that the outcomes we desire - lower prices, higher wages, higher quality - advanced more by a free market economy with strict government courts to exert punishment over fraud, negligence, damages, rather than an controlled economy with regulatory agencies passing laws - fully vulnerable to lobbyist influence - in order to check fraud, negligence, damages, etc.



As for utilities.. these are public goods, not market goods. There is no way you can choose who you buy your tap water from. Again, despite what many posters have said, I and most free-market people advocate for strict government oversight of utilities - goods and services that by their very nature cannot be competitive in a marketplace. Deregulation of these lead to worse outcomes. There is evidence for that.

But the differences between utilities and market goods are not arbitrary. You can't choose which water treatment plant or which power company's wires are hooked up to your house. These are not markets, thus they are public goods and best when overseen by government. There has never been any denying this from me.

Those who deny it are the Bush and Chaney's of the world. They are NOT free market advocates by any stretch of the imagination. Clinton was more of a free market advocate than THEY were. Government regulation and spending exploded under their watch. They pushed for deregulation of power to please their friends, plain and simple.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 290
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 11:23:01 AM
Mr. Evil,

If corporations = death, then why in the past two centuries, the time when there has been an explosion of corporate activity, have we seen unprecedented increases in life expectancy rates, disease survival rates, literacy rates, reductions in infant mortality, reductions in starvation and extreme poverty?

What data are you using to justify your hypothesis?
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 291
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:19:19 PM
Oh c'mon ubiq, you can do better than that!

Don't need no stinkin data! I thought you said you read history, if you did, you'd know unions came along or you'd still be working seven days a week. Or that they struck to get benefits, which improved longevity of life. Look at how the absence of unions have allowed your benefits to dwindle. Not that unions were all good, they employed "greed" along with the rest and drove the steel companies and car companies under.

Are you seriously telling me that corporations helped with literacy rates? hahaha! That was govenrment, that made you pay school taxes that improved schools.

Hmmm, reductions in starvation and extreme poverty? hahaha again, grasshopper, you've got your facts skewed. Let's talk 2 top corporation in America today Walmart and Mcdonalds, do you think they pay ANYONE a living wage to support a family of 4? You can't even get benefits cause they work your hours in such a way, you NEVER qualify!

Due to our corporate culture, 5% of America owns 60%+ of it's wealth. Gone are the days of the middle class, it shrinks year after year. All you have now, is lower middle class and some upper low class. There are statistics available online that shows 20% of Americans earn below what would be considered poverty wages, due to where they live(cost) and size of family. Do you really believe that you can live life on $20,000 a year with a family of 4, in say NYC, Phila., or better still DC?

Corporations are not omnipotent gods, they are soulless entities, run for profit and nothing else. The men that run them, are elected for how ruthless they are, not for how beneficent or good.

Further the advances in disease survival, infant mortality and a number of other things, were developed in a lot of universities, as well as experiments by corporate cultures. All of our elderly owe most of their longevity to social security, the 60' medicare act and other government programs.

God guy, wake up and look at the big picture. You've been listening to the siren's song of free enterprise too long. I know better than most, I lived in the evil kingdom of wall st for 25 years. Mine was the vanilla end, but it was evil just the same.

Your looking for a utopian solution promoted by businesses, who's self interest is to make a dollar, screw whatever anyone else needs. Please show me all the CEO's who give up part of their wages to avoid layoffs of their workers? hahahaha!

Silly kid, you've got greed confused with corporate resposibility(an oxymoron if ever I heard one). They are responsible only to their shareholders, and frankly not even them. It's not like shareholders revolt and NOT name their cronies to the boards, then award them salaries and stock options that would make kings blush 200 years ago!

Wake up, your dreaming. Hahahaha!
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 292
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 12:24:48 PM
What makes you think the idea of laborers organizing to demand benefits is inconsistent with free markets?


Again, you attacking a straw man. Labor unions are 100% consistent with free markets.





Your points about Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc do not take into consideration 1) the fact that these companies have lowered costs to such a degree that they leave more money in consumers pockets which quite literally has the real-world effect of increasing employment and pay in other sectors of the economy and 2) the millions of people in undeveloped nations that have been pulled out of poverty as a result of working directly or indirectly with these companies.

Moreover, Wal-Mart is one of the most powerful lobbyists on DC. They continually are guaranteed generous tax-breaks, eminent domain, and other government incentives to expand and grow into cities. They are hardly a free market entity.

Take a gander at world-wide poverty statics and how closely they correlate to international trade and direct foreign investment. Poverty has been plummeting in nations that are moving towards economic freedom - mainly Asia - and has been slowly increasing in nations moving away from it - mainly Europe and the US.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 293
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 1:17:48 PM
(sigh) guess you know best! Gee last time I looked, "They are hardly a free market entity." Walmart WAS listed on the NYSE, people can buy shares in it, it has a board of directors, independently selected, not by the government appointee. They are NOT "continually are guaranteed generous tax-breaks, eminent domain , and other government incentives". NO ONE is guaranteed a tax break, they can lobby for one, they can petition for one, they can negoiate for oen with municipal govenrments as part of a package to put a location in that town, city or jurisdiction.

Further while a municipality, MAY use eminent domain, it NEVER is granted to a corporation. The municipality uses it's "right of eminent domain" for the public good, as it is "perceived" by that local government. So if a town council decides the citizens of that town want a "wallyworld" to be built, they will use that right to put together a parcel of land. Although that rarely happens now, since studies have shown, that not only will the general wages of the population be lowered by Walmart, it will end up nuking not only the local merchants in that town, but the surrounding towns as well.

I suggest, you also look at what constitutes "poverty" before and after in Asia. IF the wage was $1 a day before, now is raised to $2.50 a day working in a sweatshop 12 hours a day, then yes there standard of living went up by 150%. Is that a better deal? Of course it is, does it make it right? Nope sorry, don't think so. Further at what costs do they achieve these jobs, handling hazardous chemicals, substances and creating mini "love canals" all over asia. Lax laws with regard to dumping toxic substances in rivers and streams, something we learned was bad, YEARS AGO, isn't good.

IF you take away local restaurants patrons, IF you take away local merchants customers, IF you lower the wage standard for a town, IF you increase unemployment, by driving local businesses out, are you better off or worse? When they add 25 or 50 workers at less money, take away 10 jobs, are you better off with Mcdonalds in your community? If the food served in that gone restaurant was cooked better, had more nutritional value than fried, greasy, sh1t are you better off.

When Walmart adds 150 jobs, but the long term result is a loss of 200 jos in that community and the surrounding communities are you better off? When the profits of those lost businesses were reinvested in that community by local people, and now Walmart sucks those profits out of the community and sends them to their executives and share holders are you better off?

OT: If you want an economic debate start a thread about it. This is about the gulf and the disaster brought on by poor corporate management, short cutting safety measures, and generally fuking up the gulf for the NEXT 100 YEARS OR SO! So trying to prove you understand economics 101 better than me or any other poster, seems a little silly. START A THREAD!
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 294
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 2:05:46 PM
mr. evil



NO ONE is guaranteed a tax break, they can lobby for one, they can petition for one, they can negoiate for oen with municipal govenrments as part of a package to put a location in that town, city or jurisdiction.

Fair enough.

We are using different definitions of terms.

I, and most people who advocate for "free markets" do not consider government granting a private institution's use of tax funds a "free" activity. Taxes are collected by force and they are allocated not by those who paid, but by those in charge.

Some people call this "trickle down economics." It is a bullshit excuse for corporatism that harms the free market, not supports it.

When government state power combines with business power, it is a violation - not an expression - of freedom in the marketplace.








Further while a municipality, MAY use eminent domain, it NEVER is granted to a corporation. The municipality uses it's "right of eminent domain" for the public good, as it is "perceived" by that local government.

Who do you suppose put those people into the offices of that local "government"? And who do you think influences them the most?

Major corporations have a disproportionate amount of influence in politics. Why? Because the real world reality is that politics is a money game.

Money, interests, and incentives are highly organized in a corporation. They are highly diffuse in the normal voting population.

Thus, corporations tend to have disproportionate influence on campaigns, elections, and the entire legislative and executive functions of government.

If politicians have the right to confiscate one's property against one's will - again, something completely inconsistent with free markets - then the de facto reality is that corporations will have those rights. Why? Because the reality is highly organized money and special interest will win the politics game more than diffuse money and general interests.

When we say "government control" in the economy we really ought to say "corporate control" if we want to be accurate. The reality is corporations control these portions of our government. Denying this is delusional. The evidence is right before our eyes.

We can't look at government in a vacuum.








I suggest, you also look at what constitutes "poverty" before and after in Asia. IF the wage was $1 a day before, now is raised to $2.50 a day working in a sweatshop 12 hours a day, then yes there standard of living went up by 150%. Is that a better deal? Of course it is, does it make it right?

What do you define as "right?"

Also, I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but you haven't acknowledged the fact that the costs of living in places like India and China are far lower than they are in the West.

A 700sq+ 2br family apartment can be rented in most parts of China for about 2000RMB a month. Or roughly $300 dollars per month. This is easily paid for by a single earner's income of $8 dollars per day - a more realistic wage in China.

The point I'm making is, wage comparisons between differing nations make no sense unless you account for costs of living. Once you do that, disparities in come are far less drastic.






Lax laws with regard to dumping toxic substances in rivers and streams, something we learned was bad, YEARS AGO, isn't good.

I agree with you completely. While the Chinese government has made enormous progress in respecting individual property rights, they have largely ignored them as they pertain to their own land.

Enforcing laws limiting pollution, "dumping toxic substances", etc are consistent with respecting property rights and do not violate the principles of a free market.






Further at what costs do they achieve these jobs, handling hazardous chemicals, substances and creating mini "love canals" all over asia

Of course there are costs. There are always costs.

But there are benefits too.

And the evidence of increased life expectancy rates, lowered disease death rates (not increased), lowered rates of mal-nutrition etc are evidence - to me - that they are coping with the costs in such a way to make the benefits outweigh them.





When Walmart adds 150 jobs, but the long term result is a loss of 200 jos in that community and the surrounding communities are you better off?

There is no evidence for this.

The evidence shows that Walmart consolidates labor in certain businesses - grocery, consumer electronics, etc - over a certain geographical region. They reduce employment in those sectors because their capital equipment better serves consumer demand. It lowers prices as well. And because of this, more money is left in the millions of Walmart customer's pockets, which they use to spend in other places. Employment in restaurants, movie theaters, and other non-retail industries all tend to increase when Walmarts come to down.

Cities that have Walmarts do very well. Wealth increases as a result.



That's not to say Walmart is an angelic corporation. As I said before, they benefit enormously from state intervention in the economy. I would rather the Walmart stockholders pay for all of Walmart's costs, not tax payers.

Walmart is one of the strongest proponents of increasing the minimum wage. It's sad.






This is about the gulf and the disaster brought on by poor corporate management, short cutting safety measures, and generally fuking up the gulf for the NEXT 100 YEARS OR SO! So trying to prove you understand economics 101 better than me or any other poster, seems a little silly. START A THREAD!

I have presented analysis to put-forth an alternative hypothesis to the cause and solution to the problem.

Again, the posters in this thread who have not taken the time to inform themselves on current events and economics wrongfully believe that the Gulf of Mexico constitutes what is described as a free market. It' not. It is a blatant, crushing failure of government regulatory control over a market.

Thus, their blame for the free market in this case can rationally be deemed as inconsistent with reality and therefore any proposed "solution" predicated on it that notion can be rightfully be considered invalid and irrational.

Again, all I'm doing is putting forth an alternative to the mob-like cry of "REGULATION!!!!". I do not believe the idea that adding a few more pages to our gigantic regulatory code will amount to significant improvement in the results we all desire. I think the system itself needs to be changed.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 295
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 3:46:54 PM
The Gulf crime scene is grabbing the headlines now, but like most, I had no idea about the oil holocaust going on in Nigeria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

snip..
in fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.

snip..
On 1 May this year a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline in the state of Akwa Ibom spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. Local people demonstrated against the company but say they were attacked by security guards. Community leaders are now demanding $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Few expect they will succeed. In the meantime, thick balls of tar are being washed up along the coast.

Within days of the Ibeno spill, thousands of barrels of oil were spilled when the nearby Shell Trans Niger pipeline was attacked by rebels. A few days after that, a large oil slick was found floating on Lake Adibawa in Bayelsa state and another in Ogoniland. "We are faced with incessant oil spills from rusty pipes, some of which are 40 years old," said Bonny Otavie, a Bayelsa MP.

This point was backed by Williams Mkpa, a community leader in Ibeno: "Oil companies do not value our life; they want us to all die. In the past two years, we have experienced 10 oil spills and fishermen can no longer sustain their families. It is not tolerable."

With 606 oilfields, the Niger delta supplies 40% of all the crude the United States imports and is the world capital of oil pollution. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 years over the past two generations. Locals blame the oil that pollutes their land and can scarcely believe the contrast with the steps taken by BP and the US government to try to stop the Gulf oil leak and to protect the Louisiana shoreline from pollution.

"If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention," said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. "This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta."
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 296
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 4:00:37 PM
I just skimmed the thread but couldn't see if anyone had posted BP's other dirty non-secret:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/05/congressman-bp-safety-oil-spill




In the months before BP's Deepwater Horizon rig sank in a ball of fire in the Gulf of Mexico, the company had four close calls on pipelines and facilities it operates in Alaska, according to a letter from two congressmen obtained by ProPublica.

In that letter, dated Jan. 14, 2010, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., noted that the company's efforts to cut costs could imperil safety at BP facilities.

Between September 2008 and November 2009, three BP gas and oil pipelines on Alaska's North Slope ruptured or clogged, leading to a risk of explosions, the letter said. A potentially cataclysmic explosion was also avoided at a BP gas compressor plant, where a key piece of equipment designed to prevent the buildup of gas failed to operate, and the backup equipment intended to warn workers was not properly installed.

The letter was addressed to BP's president of Alaskan operations, John Mingé. The congressmen have been investigating BP's safety and operations since 2006, when a 4,800-barrel oil spill temporarily shut down the Prudhoe Bay drilling field pipeline.

Neither Waxman nor Stupak returned calls for comment, and it wasn't clear from the letter how they obtained the information. The pipeline problems were mentioned in trade and local press, but the compressor plant incident does not appear to have been previously reported.

In 2006, after a string of highly-publicized accidents, BP publicly committed to improving its safety record, and by many accounts it made progress. But this letter suggests concerns about the safety of BP operations persisted in the months leading up to the accident in the Gulf this April, which killed 11 workers and has lead to the largest U.S. oil spill in recent history.

In the letter the congressmen say the "serious safety and production incidents" could affect the operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, a "vital energy security asset" that supplies one fourth of the nation's daily oil needs.

BP announced strong profits on April 27. According to a banking analyst report, the company benefited from having cut some 5,000 jobs and saving $4 billion in operating expenses.

A BP spokesman in Alaska did not respond by the time of publication after requesting and receiving detailed questions from ProPublica.

The revelation of the incidents comes as BP is battling to stop the 210,000 gallons of oil that are gushing each day from a broken well pipe into the waters of the Gulf. In that accident, a shut-off valve that Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer for exploration and production described Monday as "failsafe," failed to close, and the company had not installed a remote control backup valve that also might have stopped the spill.

According to the letter, in the most dangerous of the incidents last year in Alaska, safety backstops also failed. On Oct. 10, 2009, a staging valve stuck closed at a large central compressor station in Prudhoe Bay where gas is captured for re-injection back underground. According to the congressional letter, the blockage caused gas to back up on another series of valves. A backup flare meant to burn off that collection of gas was not lit at the time, and cameras, installed so BP staff could monitor the flare's functions in real time, were not pointed in the right direction. There was no explosion; the gas vented out before anything could ignite it.

Robert Bea, a professor at University of California Berkeley's department of civil and environmental engineering who has worked for both Shell and BP on Alaska's North Slope, said the situation at the compressor station sounded like a ticking bomb.

"It's hard to describe these explosions in terms that people can understand," he said. "It would rival the biggest ones that we have ever had in the history of the oil and gas industry."

Bea said a blast zone could reach 300 feet and leave a crater 90 feet wide. He likened the potential scenario to a gas valve error that led to the massive explosion of an offshore drilling platform called Piper Alpha in the North Sea in 1988, in which 167 workers were killed.

In a Sept. 29, 2008 incident according to the congressional memo, a high pressure gas line blew apart without igniting, sending a 28-foot long piece of metal 900 feet through the air and spewing gas.

"Let's just call them lucky," Bea said. "Even the steel bouncing around can ignite sparks to erupt the gas."


The letter stated that on Jan. 15, 2009 a cleaning pig -- a bullet-shaped device that runs diagnostics inside the pipeline -- got stuck and let large amounts of gas leak into a pump station.

And on November 29, 2009 an 18-inch pipe carrying a mixture of oil, natural gas and waste water ruptured, spraying its flammable contents.

BP has a recent history of disasters stemming from incomplete maintenance and faulty equipment, including the 2005 blast at a refinery in Texas City, Texas, where 15 workers died after a fuel tower was powered up without following protocol. Then there was the 2006 Alaskan pipeline spill, which occurred four years after BP had been warned about corroded pipelines. The company pleaded guilty to felony counts in the first incident and a misdemeanor charge in the second, tallying fines in excess of $62 million.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, now chaired by Waxman, has oversight authority for the Trans-Alaska pipeline. In congressional hearings after the 2006 Prudhoe Bay spill, BP management was accused of making "draconian" budget cuts that affected safety and health, including limiting the use of a corrosion inhibitor inside the pipeline, a step that could have prevented the deterioration that led to the 2006 spill. In his most recent letter, Waxman repeats the concern that the company is cutting corners.

Last weekend BP's CEO Tony Hayward told the BBC that the company's latest spill in the Gulf had no relation to the past. "I don't think it's a trend," he said. "This has got nothing to do with what went on at Texas City."

In a 2006 interview with this reporter after the refinery fire and Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill, BP America's former CEO, Bob Malone, said "I cannot see a systemic problem in BP America."

• ProPublica's Ryan Knutson contributed reporting to this story.

• This is a guest post by ProPublica for the Guardian Environment Network
 brawnydog
Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 297
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 4:23:34 PM
I think bp should open up a few bi-product theme parks like lego land.
Whatcha think, Late?
Kinda offset the cost with entertainment.
 That Handy Man
Joined: 11/23/2008
Msg: 299
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 7:37:39 PM
Man, I can't say how much I detest EGO fighting EGO in these forums!

You guys are ALL SMART! Just STOP IT for crying out loud! STOP fighting over words!

As for the issue! Who is BP? People talk about BP as if it's ONE person! And that's a BIG part of the problem! It's the shareholders! It could be your Aunt Bessie! So put her in stocks, in the town square!

Like the tainted water water issue, close to here in Walkerton. It was lax operating procedures and from what I understand ultimately seemed to be the fault of two drunk brothers employed by public works department! But in the end, who got punished? ME! The taxpayer, and as usual, win loose or draw, a bunch of scum sucking lawyers got rich!

Wherever you turn, just more of the same!
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 300
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/13/2010 8:25:38 PM
Hmmm, interesting last few posts. First:

"I am hoping the world will unite but I realize I am dreaming."

No your not, it's just that language, customs, local ritual, culture and polotics, among other things make it more difficult. If you look back at history, the league of nations could have led to it, then we have the UN, which could be an answer, as well as other organizations. As comunications make the world a smaller place, more messages get out. Yes some are of hate, some are of religious beliefs, still others warn and tell the stories we would have waited weeks or months to hear, like the unrest in Iran.

BUT corporate culture, ties up communications seamlessly. Because they are united in one cause, profit. They don't squabble over religion, cultural differences, or skin color or gender. The only issue is the maximizing of profit, for the parent company, at any means.

It may take longer, but with more and more outrageous behavior, by middle managers eager to get ahead in corporate hierarchy, more Bopaul's will happen, more Valdez's will happen, more gulf type spills will happen , mor Enron's will happen. Greed guarnantees that for the future of the "win at all costs" managers, reporting to the "not my problem" executives. THEN laws will be passed, people will go to jail, responsibility will be forced on the indifferent boards and executives.

It will take more people to step up, open their eyes, then their mouths. Learn to say it with votes, with demonstrations. It (civil disobedience and protest) stopped a war, now it's time for the next 2 generations to toughen up and step up, and do their part, instead of watching fuking american idol or dance your azz off.

Jefereson Airplane: "Up the revolution" from volunteers!
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 302
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 2:12:54 AM
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
 *Just Jim*
Joined: 7/6/2007
Msg: 303
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 5:00:02 AM

So why does god hate America so much!!!


cuz we been bad,bad boys & girls. lol
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 304
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 7:01:38 AM
"So why does god hate america so much!!"

Well how about Nigeria and their oil crisis? God hate them too? How bout the 300,000 people drowned in the tsunami, God didn't like them either? I could go on and on, why bother!

If there is a God, he has the temperment of an angry 8 year old or a he11 of perverse sense of humor! As in "sh1t, let's see what they do when I do this? Hahaha"

Does any body REALLY believe God is better to those who are religious? Yeah right, helped the jews alot in the 40's, helped all one side of the muslim world when suddam was in power, helped the early christians in Rome at the arena.

Besides all that, are americans REALLY religious? Green stamp religious maybe! You know, go to church every sunday, pray and then do what the he11 they want the other 6 days. They figure when they die, they present their 60,70 or 80 books of 52 stamps and God says "hey high 5, you went to church every sunday, your in!" hahahaha

Don't work like that in my mind, but hey, WTF, I'm evil! hahahaha!!!
 That Handy Man
Joined: 11/23/2008
Msg: 306
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 6:18:37 PM
Forget about gawd for a minute. I thought, why don't the Aliens plug the leak! lol (not kidding) Would be a good PR move. Well, it's all about free will! If they did (plug it) it would be business as usual tomorrow and we wouldn't have learned a damn thing!

We have to learn, no matter the cost! And in the grand scheme of things, life and death, are of no consequence anyway!

In the last week, I have watched creatures die, just by the normal hand of nature.

If it didn't hurt my business and PR, I surly would have bumper stickers that say,

Nature Doesn't Give a Fuk, So why should I?
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 307
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 7:40:27 PM
"we wouldn't have learned a damn thing!"

This seems to be a recurring theme in america. 2 world wars taught us nothing,except to spend a sh1t ton of money, fighting wars where other people don't want us. Then when we win, lose or draw, we walk away, leaving a dazed people to muddle through.

8 or 10 serious recessions or depressions taught us nothing, we cycle through the economic up and downturns, get caught up in the moment, and peoples future gets slaughtered, in the name of "it's always going to be better next year".

In the late 70's we had an oil crisis, we started to build more fuel efficient vehicles. We made progress, even had a few cars that would get 35 to 40 miles to the gallon. Was that good enough? Of fuking course not. Gas prices came down, supply was plentiful, so we went back to building SUV's, trucks and vehicles that got 7 miles to the gallon.

Did we learn anything, NO. Did we pay attention, as we exported jobs by the 100,000 overseas, of course not. Then what happened, by sending those jobs overseas, american corporations saved millions, at the cost of american workers. What else you ask? Well those exported jobs increased the living standard in India, China and other places. Giving them a greater need for oil, where none existed before.

So now the price of oil skyrockets to $150 a barrel where it had been $20 to 35 a barrel scant years before. So we then hear the sirens song of "let's just find more oil"!

So where does that lead? To Palins "drill baby, Drill!" and bush and cheney making deals behind closed doors selling OUR souls and future, so some sh1thead soccer mom can drive her gas guzzling SUV to the fuking nail salon. Which brings us to day 54 of the worst ecological disaster in human history.

Something that will take years, no decades more likely a century to put right.

Was it worth it? When the children of those poor people in the gulf, start to develop diseases from exposure to this toxic mess, will it be worth it. When New Orleans looks like one of those old ghost towns from the wild west will be happy for sh1t head soccer mom?

So if you really feel "Nature Doesn't Give a Fuk, So why should I?"

Why don't you move your children down there, next to one of those marshes where, the oil will stay, for the next 50 years? Oh I forgot, it's not your problem, it didn't hurt your business and PR.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 308
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 8:18:23 PM
They should follow the Ecuadorian aboriginals path and file a class action suit against BP.

The Ecuadorian suit against Texaco is one of the largest ever filed at around 100 billion dollars for their wholesale destruction of a large swath of the Amazon rain-forest and the ensuing deaths and sickness from rampant dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and streams never mind reckless destruction of untold hundreds of thousands of hectares of rain-forest habitat.

With the sheer volume of area and people affected, I don't think a trillion would be out of the question at this point... against both British Petroleum and the US Government for failure to maintain standards to protect its own citizens from corporate malfeasance.

The 1886 Southern Pacific Railway decision was the beginning of the end...

For a summary of why BP is a "bad person" go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 309
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/14/2010 9:23:13 PM

Maybe when the Catholics have nothing to eat on Friday's the religious lobbyists will come up with the answer.

You're behind on your Vaticans. That's only during Lent.

One good thing about the oil spill is that it seems to have temporarily shut up the Global Warming Is a Conspiracy nuts:
"We can use all the oil we want, the scientists are lying, it doesn't affect the environment at all."
"The Gulf."
"Damn."
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 311
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 9:27:53 AM
Loving the hearings in the senate today. I've never seen so many lie so well to so few!!

At one point they looked like bobble heads, when a senator asked a couple of questions and they all said yes each time.

I also love the monday morning quarterbacking from the others against BP, "we wouldn't have done it that way!" Lying sacks of sh1t, they ALLL spilled in one place or another.

Tonight Obama speaks after the hearings are over, hmmmm, funny how that was timed. The senate hears the executives today, the ceo and chairman of BP meet with Obama or top aides today and tonight Obama speaks.

Gawd are they all collecting their stories to shine us on further!! Fuk it, while we got them here, fly them to the gulf for that 5K swim, screw the speeches, let's see a couple of them drown in that sh1t!

Yes, before you say it, I sound deranged, angry and thwarted. My country, those who represent me(in theory) and these pricks who make a fuking fortune, aren't doing a damn thing.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 312
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 9:36:44 AM
They havent been doing a darn thing about lots for a very long time.
We the people are tired, frustrated, and jaded.
 brawnydog
Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 313
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 9:53:29 AM
I missed that. But, when I was in the convenient store picking up
necessities like smokes, beer and ice cream cones.. I noticed the front page of
the local paper had a big pic of obama saying some shyt like "don't worry..
the beaches will be better than ever." No kidding.
I asked the bud delivery guy if he saw that and he rolled his eyes.
That confirmed my thoughts that it was prolly more bullshyt.
I should have hung out for half an hour and polled every literate person
who stopped for a quick pick. But, I figured the bud guy was good enough.
He get's around more than I do. Why second guess him?
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 315
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 11:36:28 AM
I certainly hope after "million of years", petroleum will look to the people of the future like what whale oil looks like to us now

If that is indeed being used as a justification for this accident, then I would suggest reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
 brawnydog
Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 316
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 12:31:40 PM
let's get back to the topic guys. hahahaha

There's a big diff between 500' and 5000'. They still had to drill down about 2 and a quarter miles once they got there. I guess it's cheaper to fantasize about shooting
a low grade concrete down a mile and put a party hat on it than it is to
drill down that extra mile in shallow water where people could possibly have a hands on situation. Once again.. last comment.. sorry..

edit.. lol
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 319
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 2:08:42 PM
YEAH RIGHT! That's what BP wants MORE people to see first hand how they are fuking things up!

The only good new I can report here is that here in Atlanta at least, the BP stations remain largely desserted of traffic. Yesterday afternoon, at the height of rush hour, on a very busy road, 2 BP stations occupy the diagonal corners of a prominent intersection.

Up 2 blocks was a QT gas station 20-30 cars getting as, down the block an Exxon(sign of the double cross) and a Chevron were doing a land office business as well. At the BP station with 20 pump each at each station there was "1" car. We stopped and watched for 5 minutes(not a lot I know) but while motorists kept pulling into the other stations, BP remained vacant.

Karma's a b1tch ain't it!
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 320
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/15/2010 2:41:38 PM
Up 2 blocks was a QT gas station 20-30 cars getting as, down the block an Exxon(sign of the double cross) and a Chevron were doing a land office business as well. At the BP station with 20 pump each at each station there was "1" car. We stopped and watched for 5 minutes(not a lot I know) but while motorists kept pulling into the other stations, BP remained vacant.

So they're going to run out of money to fix what they screwed up. And you think this is a good (?) thing?

You really confuse me.


It may take longer, but with more and more outrageous behavior, by middle managers eager to get ahead in corporate hierarchy, more Bopaul's will happen, more Valdez's will happen, more gulf type spills will happen , mor Enron's will happen.

Derrrrrr.... Enron happened because the HIGHER management managed to screw over the middle management and bail with their stock options cashed out. You are completely incoherent.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >