What's with all the BP hate?

Could you explain how you arrive at your conclusion? Tony has been acknowledged as being tone deaf by both Rs and Ds. The Rs are mostly looking to avoid the backlash that has been directed at Tony; so, that could be argued as being about politics. On an objective standard, are you arguing that the environmental damage that is occurring as a direct result of BP's well blowout is really just a figment of the imagination of all of the various spill responders, researchers and people who make their living on the Gulf?

Union Carbide should be held to account. If you are complaining about the time it has taken and how the penalty appears to be a slap on the wrist, perhaps you should raise an issue with the Indian legal system. As far as one life being worth more than another, I am not defending that assertion; never have. However, U.S. consumers can not be held responsible for the failure of local judicial/regulatory functions in a sovereign nation.

I guess Tony got his life back. BTW, if they hadn't ponied up the cash, they would have been looking at an involuntary receivership at a minimum. So, don't go claiming that BP has stepped up to the plate out of altruism.

If BP hadn't been cutting corners left and right, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Tony could have enjoyed his yachting weekend free of intrusion from the blogosphere.

You seem to be in a position of denial of the differences. Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for BP's share price tanking?

 

It could be true that 40% of US pensions funds hold some BP stock, but that is irrelevant to the great majority of voters. A huge number of workers have no pension, and many wouldn't mind sticking it to those who do. Most with pensions have 'defined' pensions, where the pensioner gets not a single penny extra if BP stock performs very well, and the pension agency is still required to find the funds for payment should BP collapse. It isn't the pensioner's problem.

No pension fund that is run competently and legally will have enough of any one stock to be seriously wounded by its failure. And should BP fail, America is so addicted to oil that the other Big Oil companies will pick up the business. For the pension funds as a whole, this ought to be a wash.

 

I am surprised it hasn't been moved there already.

 

But we did go through all those allegations while George was still in office. Having a major military base in the region, I heard numerous news stories of family members buying body armor and other supplies for inadequately provisioned guardsmen and reservists serving in Iraq.

 

I seem to recall a certain SecDef as well as his boss catching hell for the episode. You could argue that Barry didn't clean up the mess at MMS fast enough, but that is a bit of a stretch. Rummy resisted the calls for up-armoring humvees for something like two years. MMS is no longer going to oversee rig safety. That change happened before the first 30 days of the spill. And the head of MMS got sacked in the bargain. Rummy didn't get sacked until November, 2006 - 3 years after the invasion of Iraq.

 

Oh I am not denying a disaster and not saying that bp should not be held to account, not at all. It is absolutely terrible what has happened, or I should say is still happening.

In holland we have a saying; you can't pluck feathers of a bold chicken. And when not careful that's exactly what is going to happen in my opinion.

You are right about the Indian legal system being slow and not demanding enough. However isn't it the us who us stopping the extradition despite agreements in place?

 

Citation? If true, Union Carbide should get slammed. No one should be above the law.

 

Oh nearly forgot to explain my view on the political angle. From my view the Ds aren't looking to great for mid term and have previously come under a lot of critism. And the Rs well they would be working hard to distance themselves from previous policies and relaxed governance of this kind of exploration. Well so it seems to be portrayed by international news agencies.

I'd just like it when all joint efforts are being put in place to stop this disaster and let's the slagging match start there after. It's excellent that funds are put aside in escrow, but I hazard to take a guess that more will be required.

He'll probably gets condemned as well for going to Russia next.

 

The citation is over all the news agencies at the moment. Unfortunately I am on my phone which makes it hard to post the links.

 

Not an acceptable reply IMHO. If you can't follow up with at least some modicum of citation, then you risk losing any and all credibility.

Personally, I think that every argument made by anyone (right or left) should carry at least some basic facts that are correct. If not, the poster should be called out for being part are the larger, deliberate, misinformation campaign. ( I am not calling you out yet, but if you fail to post some corroboration I will!)

The last egregious example that I called out was the repeated lie tha Obama has "taken more vacation days" than any president in recent history. This is not correct in fact, not even close, and yet every time we allow comments like that to stand unopposed it only makes the misinformation stronger. Repeat a lie often enough an it becomes "true".

So when you get off the phone,, find some citation or feel free to retract you comment(s).

 

BP cut corners and in the end what they did do was not enough to prevent, stop, or clean up this mess in time. Obviously they did this due to a business decision to make more money.

What amazes me is that people are surprised or mad at this. This is what businesses do, especially major corporations like BP, they make money.

What I don't understand is why more people aren't mad at our government. First and foremost our government is there to protect us, and they did not. Obviously the risks of deep water drilling were too high and not completely understood. Obviously BP and the owners of the oil rig were not prepared. Obviously the gamble BP and the owners of the oil rig took to make money was too much of a risk. ALL of these things should have and could have been prevented by OUR GOVERNMENT.

Of course the blame of the day is against W, but dig deeper below the media headlines that sell ads. You will find that the two party, owned by the special interest politicians in DC have built and maintained a culture that has little to no connection with reality and almost no interest AT ALL in supporting or protecting the people in this country.


I don't blame BP, they did what they do because they were allowed to. They took a risk, that our government knew about and supported. I blame out government, ALL OF THEM, for failing us AGAIN!

The democrats will now use this disaster, cause it would be terrible to waste a good disaster, to force through unproven and damaging ideological policies and legislation. The republicans will use this disaster to steal power from the democrats, and then put through THEIR unproved and damaging ideological policies and legislation.

As long as people continue to blindly maintain allegiances to the established powers in the two corrupt parties that are only interested in maintaining and extending their power we will continue to have NO solutions, NO security, NO protection, NO leadership, and NO future.


But that's just me.

 

Jeez where are we in a court of law or something I've worked with enough different cultures that I let this one go but as a liverputian would say 'eh eh calm down'

Here you go, take your pick Union Carbide Boss Extradition

PS. By being on the phone I meant a mobile device to post, give a guy some slack..

 

So is Exxon. Yet in the same situation they decided to stop drilling before a disaster happened. Same is true for the other oil companies drilling in the Gulf. As soon as we buy into the idea that irresponsibility can be excused due to economic pressures......well figure it out.

(Please remember that 11 people died. Would you be advocating the same point if you were close to one of the killed?)

Yes, up to a point. Can every aircraft accident be prevented by the FAA? No. Is aircraft travel safe due to Government regulation? Yes. Can it be better? Hard to tell.

Sure the MMS has been found wanting. But how does one prevent the unfailing decay of government organizations as they age? I don't know. Do you? This is something that I think about a lot. Unfortunately, as long as the leaders are appointed by politicians, I see no solution. You thoughts on how to solve this are welcome. Please think about it and respond.

 

Thank you,

All I am saying, is that it is far too easy to post stuff as fact, with no citation and let the public suck it up. I think it is important for us to be called to cite our references to back up our statements, which you have done. Thank you.

 

Dejongj,

Actually, I am going to pull some of my thanks. Your original assertion was that it was the US that was hindering extradition to India of UC execs. Your link only provides links to the issue of the Indians pushing for extradition, not the US standing in the way of it. A quick scan of the articles in your link make no reference to the US government "standing in the way of" the extradition. (Beyond ordinary legal protections)

So I ask once again, please cite something more specific to your comment.

Thank you,

Icarus

 

Take a look at the CNN/WSJ/etc article which states the first request was made in 1993...in 2004 it was finally officially denied...and now the requests are being made again...

That is not cooperative behaviour, hence my argument measuring with two sticks ;-)

 

I checked the CNN article. It stated that a $470 million settlement was made with India in 1989. That generally gets into 'res judicata' territory, which would be a basis for denying an extradition warrant. The fact that the victims only received an average of $500/each out of the $470 million is not Union Carbide's fault. Sounds like India had better uses for the $470 million than to pay survivor compensation.

 

There is a difference between vengeance, justice, and solving industrial shortcuts. The first require inflicting injury on someone, the second requires honest processing of the law, and the third requires structuring the relationship between corporations, citizens, and government to serve all, not one.

Both CEO's should be held responsible for their companies standards and performance. However, in neither case was any of the other organizations / government that had responsibilities free of guilt either. Nothing is solved by satisfying lynch mobs.

 

Most countries will not extradite people, especially their own citizens, for foreign 'crimes' for which they have no legal equivalent, or for which the punishment is far harsher than at home.

The U.S. generally does not file criminal homicide or manslaughter charges against CEOs when their underlings cause fatalities. Here, unlike India and many other countries, the homicide charges generally are reserved to those with a more direct connection to the fatalities.

Had this tragedy occurred in the U.S., Anderson still wouldn't have faced homicide charges, though his company would have been put out of U.S. business, losing all domestic assets.

The odds of Anderson being extradited to India on this charge are about the same as an accused murderer facing the death penalty being extradited to here from the UK, Ireland, or (real local cases) Canada and Brazil. Nil.

The U.S. also generally does not allow reopening cases after full and final criminal and civil settlements have been made. It appears that the vast majority of compensatory damages paid by UCC have simply vanished into the bowels of the Indian government.

 

You make some really good points. The main problem is compromise. Everything in life is a trade off. Our government could protect us from the dangers of deep water drilling by banning it entirely, but our society wants oil. We need the products provided by business, and businesses exist to make money. Even a non-profit organization has to make enough money to cover expenses. We can't ban business unless we all want to go back to subsistence farming at the most primitive level.

Making the proper trade-offs proves difficult. If BP cuts corners drilling wells and saves time and money we are all happy as long as everything goes okay. When disaster strikes it is easy to go back and say that it was a bad trade off. Our country can save a lot of money by cutting defense. Defense is a huge drain with very little return - until we thumped by a hostile aggressor. How much is just the right amount? There isn't any one right answer. The only thing you can know for sure is that you made the wrong choice when it all goes to hell in a hand basket.

Tom