What's with all the BP hate?

Let's remember that thought for Tony Hayward when the time comes ;-) and the disabled British computer hacker that the us is trying to get and, and, and. Two yard stick again ;-)

 

Completely agree, my point was who is responsible. While BP should do a better job, it's really no surprise that they didn't. Our governments job is to be responsible for stuff like this, and they dropped the ball.

 

The only irresponsibility that is being excused(not by me) is the irresponsibility of our government, the ones who are truly responsible for protecting us, in fact protecting the people is their most important job and should be priority #1. Why aren't more people angry at the government? Why are people more angry at BP than the government?

As for Exxon, of course they stopped as soon as the failure happened, does anyone have any proof that BP wouldn't have done the same thing? You can't say that Exxon is better than BP because Exxon took measures after a disaster that BP did not have the opportunity to take. BP can't go back in time and stop drilling because of a failure that will happen in the future. However our Government could have refused to rubber stamp approve BP's request to be excluded from getting an environmental impact report that might have shown how bad this could have been.

And that is unbelievably tragic, so why did it take our President so long to get his nice person in gear and pay this situation the attention it deserved? Why was it he didn't get mad until the press told him the people wanted him to get mad? And why did he then make excuses for his behavior?

How about we work to make our Government of the people for the people? How about we hold them responsible and stop letting them direct attention away from the involvement and guilt of their party and themselves by pointing fingers across the aisle at the other guys. We get no acceptance of responsibility anymore. All we have heard from the Democrats since they gained power(even before W was gone) is that it is all the fault of the Republicans, especially W. If you dig deep you will find that a lot of the things that the D's blame on the R's and W the D's were in support of and in some cases very much in support of(go look at how many Democrats voted for the changes in regulation of Derivatives that help our economy eat itself).

Bottom line is our government is full of crap. All they seem to be interested in now is bragging rights and pointing fingers. The Democrats promised hope and change, and they had the power to make real changes that would have got this country back on track and moving forward. Instead of working towards a future for all they have worked towards a future that fits within their very specific definition of reality. They have failed, and now instead of giving this country what it needs to maintain it's competitive advantage, to improve the lives of it's citizens, and to encourage the people to make the world a better place we get window dressing, lies, misinformation, missed opportunities, and failed potential.


How can we make things better, take the power away from the Democrats, Republicans, special interests, and corporations. Give the power back to the people, and make the government work to protect the people, support the people, and enable the people to succeed, prosper, and be happy.

They can start by spending less time pointing fingers and plug the hole and clean up the mess. Figure out who is at fault after you fix the problem and clean up the mess, cause I am sure the people in the Gulf would appreciate hearing less about party platforms and agendas and more about what will be done to protect them and rebuild their lives and futures. Lets just hope in the end the "fixes" actually fix something and don't end up being knee jerk emotional reactions that will cause more problems than they fix.

 

Tony and company bought their way out of that exposure. You don't honestly think they agreed to forgo the U.S. courts (where they could cut their exposure to maybe $10 B max - there is precedent, see Exxon Valdez litigation) just because they want to help the 'little people'? They purchased a don't go to jail card for the lot of them. It may cost $50 B (that is what they are putting a funding plan in place for), but not one of the team that met with Barry will be doing a perp walk for this disaster.

 

Sure the government is failing in a lot of areas. There are plenty of folks mad at the government (e.g. Tea Parties, etc.). However, are you sure that your impressions are not due to how the media presents the anger? I don't watch much TV news so I don't get the impression that the US government is getting a pass on this. When I do catch segments, it's usually showing the extreme views, not the moderate views.

It might be a little different story if BP only had this as one accident, but it's not. There are quite a few deaths in other BP facilities and quite a mess in Alaska. Sometimes corporations change direction due to public pressure and perception on their destructive practices, but this only happens when there is pressure. I'm not giving the US government a pass (see below), but I'm also not giving any corporation that clearly risks lives for profit any slack whatsoever.

Because that's what politicians do. You know those answers as well as I do.

How?

How?

Agree, but that is just an easy single word. What is the mechanism? How is this accomplished?

There is certainly some minor differences in viewpoint, but we are on the same side. It's that mechanism of making these changes I'm trying to figure out.

 

End the corruption.

Eliminate Lobbying.

Don't vote for the status quo(Democrats or Republicans).

Neuter the two parties power and control(like California just did with open primaries).

Campaign finance reform that puts in place very strict limits on who can donate, how they donate, how much they donate, and make all of it disclosed. Violations carry serious penalties, perhaps jail time.

My favorite ... Require representatives to read all legislation and explain it to their constituents. Require them to accept feedback.

Just a start. The root cause is a corrupt culture. People are pissed off at the corporations, and they can't see the fact that our government is run a lot like these corporations they hate. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are no different than these scumbag greedy CEOs of any one of these major corporations. The scary part is that people can't or won't see it.

And none of this is based on what the media says. If you watch and believe the media you will not see what I am talking about or accept it.

 

I agree (in principle) with much of what you suggest, ending corruption, lobbying etc. But I disagree with the following:

"My favorite ... Require representatives to read all legislation and explain it to their constituents. Require them to accept feedback."

I don't have any problem with Reps having to read and present legislation to constituents, requiring them to "accept feedback" is another matter all together.

What you are asking for is a change in core of the way we govern, from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. That may sound like a fine idea, but what you are left with is a number of fairly dicey problems. First, if every piece of legislation is subject to referendum, you are asking for chaos. We elect leaders (or should!) to lead. That is to make the hard choices that we as individuals are not equipped to make, to some extent because of our own self interest, but also because the average individual is not equipped to make informed choices given the vast breadth of what confronts legislators in this country. There is a place for professional politicians using professional staff to come up with legislation that while not always (or ever?) perfect, it on balance has worked fairly well throughout our history.

The bigger issue, and one that should concern everyone, regardless of liberal/conservative/libertarian bent, and that is the tyranny of the majority. Assume for a moment that what you wish for comes to pass. What happens if 50.01% of a population thinks that owning slaves is ok? Would that be OK? Or how about, if 50.01% thought that certain ethnic minorities should be allowed to be discriminated against? Far fetched? Perhaps.

What about if you are gay, and 50.01% think that homosexual behavior should be criminalized? Hows that sound? Or how about 50.01 decide that we really don't need a clean water act and there should be no penalty for dumping toxic s*%t in the river?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The fact is we live in a representative democracy, with some large built in protections for the minority opinion. At present I can rail against the filibuster, but in some ways it protects me from that tyranny. One only need to look at a number of states that have significant initiative rules, (Like Washington State) The state government is constantly hamstrung by initiatives that sometimes pass with simple majorities, but often run afoul of constitutionality, and/or fail to account for the effects of the initiative.

One final note,, if you are going to call out President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid for criticism, then you might also consider being intellectually honest and include Sen minority leader McConnell, House minority leader Boener, and whip Cantor as well. Once again, if you think the problem is restricted to Dems, then the problem lies with your own interpretation.

 

None of these proposed fixes will work as long as we continue to use a two-party system. The two established parties have a lock on the elections. Voting for a third candidate only wastes your vote.

We need to switch to some sort of preferential or progressive election system where each voter gets a shot at their preferred candidate without sacrificing their vote.

Tom

 

OK. Let's keep pushing to actual actions. These question are not meant to badger, they are an effort to distill down to real actions that I (and others) can actually execute.

What does that take? Is the problem that we don't have the right laws or we are not enforcing the laws we have? Which corruption should be targeted first?

Where does free speech become lobbying? How does one eliminate it once it is unambigously defined? What would have to be legislated to make what is not a crime (presenting viewpoints) into a crime (illegal contacting)?

What if those are the only two choices? (other than wasting a write in vote on the "waste a vote" candidates)

How has this changed the options? Last I saw, it was the still the super rich winning primaries and I only saw R/D primaries. I'm too far from CA to understand how this has changed party power.

Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled against corporation limits on spending. Corporations are allowed to spend whatever they want on the candidate of their choice. It looks like that avenue is closed, at least till the Supreme Court changes composition. Correct me if I'm wrong here. (I fully agree that this is damaging our country.)

It would be entertaining, but only in concept, not in reality.

Partially disagree. A great many see it. Everyone reading this thread sees it. Obviously, voting has alternated between every possible D/R option possible over the decades. That does not seem to work. If voting does not work, what would work?

Not Guilty.

 

While a diligent search will find many more than two yardsticks, I don't see it in your examples.

Neither Anderson nor Hayward have been linked to homicide or manslaughter deaths as viewed by American law. Our law puts the criminal death charges on the individuals who operate the machinery, or give the commands to do so. Civil wrongful death charges (money, not prision time) do reach all the way up the corporate chain, but that was settled long ago. Indian and UK laws are different.

Anderson was arrested upon arrival in India, 4 days after that tragedy, and shipped out within hours. Hayward has not been arrested in the U.S., now more than 60 days after that tragedy. The protesters demanding his arrest are venting their anger, without basis in law.

Any new Indian charges against Anderson, modeled to be parallel with U.S. law, will collide with U.S. double jeopardy and statute of limitations limits. The BP case is far from passing these restrictions.

What British hacker do you mean? I'm not hearing of this in the U.S. press, but did find something about a Gary McKinnon. It seems that he is accused of hacking U.S. military computers -- himself, not by an underling away without his knowledge or direction -- and the British courts have chosen to extradite him rather than try him under home law.

I'm seeing references to two British yardsticks, contrasting McKinnon to a Brit caught drug trafficking elsewhere, but I'm not seeing an American double standard in your examples. So please elaborate.

 

Once you replace the career politicians, the only constant year-after-year players are the lobbyists.

(Well' not always. In 1796, the French got St Just and Robespierre.)

 

Direct democracy would mean, as you suggest, that all legislation would be voted on directly by the people. This is not what I am talking about. For clarification lets look at a couple examples. During the whole Bailout debate and vote several representatives spoke in front of their houses of Congress stating that the majority of their constituents did not support the bailouts. A number of representatives did interviews where they admitted they did not even talk to their constituents. In other words the elected officials didn't care what the people wanted, and they refuse to even listen to feedback on the issue. They voted what they wanted to vote as they felt they had a mandate. In other words they voted to support the greed Wall Street financiers they supported their presence in DC.

Another example on this same subject is what happened to me when I called my reps to express my opinion on the subject. I called two offices and in both cases as soon as I stated I was calling to express my desire that my representative vote no on the bailouts the phone went dead. In both cases THEY HUNG UP ON ME.

That is the type of feedback I am talking about, not direct involvement in the voting process, but feedback in that the representatives need to listen to the people they are supposed to be representing.

See this is the problem. The legislators, and elected officials do NOT have the power or responsibility to determine what is right. They are there to represent the people and work for the people. The courts are there to determine the rights of the people spelled out in the laws and the constitution.

It's like the recent actions of some City Councils who have voted to boycott Arizona. If the people in their city support this initiative then they City Council is doing their job, just as the politician in Arizona did when they passed the anti-illegal-immigrant laws since the majority of the people in Arizona support these laws. In just about every case I have read about a City Council voting to boycott Arizona not one of them mentions that the people called for the boycott. In fact in the case of LA the Mayor basically said he doesn't care what the people want, cause he felt he had to do what is right. That's not his job, and he does NOT have the authority to play judge or one man court.

If you actually read my comments they include the Republicans as a whole in the same boat as the Democrats. The problem is the two party system. You can not seperate the individuals from the party anymore, because the party is paramount. Using Pelosi, Reid and Obama as examples shows the overwhelming lack of interest these politicians have in representing the people and is much easier to see because they are the ones in power and the most timely examples.

I could dig up plenty of things to bash the republicans, but I am not attacking one party. I am attacking both. I do not see a distinction between Nancy Pelosi the Democrat and Nancy Pelosi the politician who thinks she can run this country any way she wants with a total disregard for the people who pay her bills. She is a perfect example of how the two party system has established a preferential structure at the highest levels of power that ignore the needs and wants of the people of the entire country in favor of the people of a very small district that is overwhelming myopic in their ideology.

This is not a country made up entirely of Bay area uber-liberals. The majority of this country is independent and does not want the radical left of right agenda forced upon them by people who were not elected my the majority. The fact that the speaker of the house, or the President of the Senate is determined by the political party in majority shows the lack of representation and inequality in our political system today, especially when one of the positions of power can be occupied by an individual who completely ignores the will of the people in favor of her own myopic view of reality.

 

Yup. Heres a couple things I would like to see concerning the party power.

Make the Speaker of the house and the President of the senate majority vote positions, NOT determined by majority party.

Eliminate the Electoral College.

Campaign finance reform that eliminates direct contribution to any and all political parties and candidates. All campaign finance contributions should go to a clearing house and be distributed equally based on regional campaign cost requirements to all interested candidates. Obviously standardized candidate requirements will need to be established but they should NEVER be based on party affiliation. NOTHING in the government should favor any one party, just as our government is prohibited from making laws respecting any one religion it should be so with political parties. Wall of separation between party and state!

Remove all government support from party primaries. Primaries can be privately funded, but once the primaries are over all candidates must use public funding.

AGAIN, require elected officials to communicate with their consituents and listen to feedback(yes I know the feedback one would be hard to regulate).

Establish a vehicle that would give the power to stop an elected officials vote if the constituents support with a majority. I like the idea that a district could have a vote that would stop, or negate an elected officials vote if it does not support the will of the district. This would not give the people direct power to vote on any issue, just give them the power to overturn a vote by their representative if that vote did not represent them.

Just a few off the top of my head. I can be quite radical in my liberalism and conservativism sometimes. It's fun to think for yourself.

 

Both. First step would be to open up all campaign finance and all contributions to all politicians. Then we can see who gets what and how to stop it.

 

This has devolved into politics. Can we get a mod to move it, please? Thanks.

 

It is funny how nearly every time that one of these posts get to the point and hit a raw spot with some, they get sent to the shredder.

If you don't like contents or it makes you queasy, don't read it.

 

"The House has approved legislation that would give subpoena power to the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.... The vote Wednesday was 420-1, with Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas casting the only no vote." The Associated Press: House votes to give subpoena power for spill panel

 

Thetonka, Once again, I take significant exception with your statement:

"this is the problem. The legislators, and elected officials do NOT have the power or responsibility to determine what is right. They are there to represent the people and work for the people. The courts are there to determine the rights of the people spelled out in the laws and the constitution."

Elected representative are there for a whole multitude of things, and yes part of it is to represent constituents interest, but those constituents are not limited to voters. Consider people under 18 who have no vote, their voice is to some extent through their reps. A reps vote for (or against school funding has an effect on that younger constituent. Or how about the property owner who may not live in district, but is effected by the results of some legislation, who speaks for him.

So, we do in fact elect people dow do what "is right", not just what is popular. There are times when we expect leadership, and sometimes that means taking an un-popular stance because you know it is right. If the voters disagree, they are free to unelect them at the next election. History usually shows who was right and who was wrong.

George Wallace and Lester Maddox are on the dung heap of history because they were patently wrong in their personal opinion about civil rights. Those opinions were largely mainstream in the states they represented at the time. So yes, we should expect our leaders to show leadership and do what is right. If you don't agree, make your case at the ballot box.

Icarus

 

Sorry,
However, Tom doesn't do FHOPolitics and I was glad he answered. Also, everyone is behaving and discussing intelligent viewpoints, so we have not crossed the line of deserving banishment yet.

 

Certainly some differences in viewpoints, but not enough to merit overcommenting upon. The unifying point is that the present political system is not performing near as good as it should.

To me the critical step needed is to eliminate the "committee system" inside of congress that allows only the most senior members to control all the legislation created. The only thing that I know that would work would be term limits on senators (2 terms max) and house members (3-4 terms max). This would end the committee system and there is specific mechanisms, long unused that could make this happen. I think we might be getting close to critical mass here. Time to revive what the founders gave us to fix this problem.

Note the extremes here. At the beginning of the country, the "chaos" of no parties and no committee system resulted in the concise and powerful Bill of Rights. Now we get an indecipherable health care bill created from ONE Senator's Office.....and if the other party were in power it would be their ONE senator instead.