?

Log in

No account? Create an account
BP and wildlife and politicians - MoonScape [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
e_moon60

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

BP and wildlife and politicians [Jun. 21st, 2010|08:15 am]
e_moon60
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Mood |angry]

It's become very clear that BP has no interest in saving wildlife of any kind, and cares only about its TV image.

From an LA Times article of a few days ago:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2whekyu

And this from an organization supporting restoration of endangered sea turtles: http://www.seaturtles.org/article.php?id=1660

It's clear that BP is not only not saving wildlife, but preventing others from doing so.  The "controlled burns" of floating oil are also burning wildlife trapped inside the "booms" used to surround the oil to be burned.  The endangered Ridley's sea turtles, among many other species of sealife in the sargasso tangles, are being burned alive.

The appropriate place for the top echelon of BP and its Board--plus a host of US politicians who've historically bent over for whatever big oil wanted--is in individual rowboats scattered across the expanse of the surface oil.  No motor (I would even say no oars),  no radio or cellphone,  no rescue.   Let them eat what they can catch barehanded of the sick and dying sea creatures, and drink what they can catch of rainwater or try to fashion a little still to get some clean water.   Let them see the columns of smoke rising in the distance from the "controlled burns" and the ships ignoring them as they have ignored anything but their own profit....let them see booms being placed, and have to wonder if they're inside or outside.  And then let them see the flames coming.

If any of them survived to reach the tainted shores, I will bet you they would have a different attitude...and if they didn't, it would be appropriate to treat them as BP has treated those creatures that made it to shore--as just more detritus to be tossed on a fire.

My engineer mother said "Accidents don't happen--they are caused."   This was not an accident.  This isn't the first time that a major oil leak in the Gulf caused damage...it was predictable that it would happen again.  This was caused by greed, by carelessness, by trusting the fox to manage the henhouse.  For over twenty years, the Republican-led opposition to "government regulation" undid one protection after another...and this is the predictable result.   No industry can regulate itself...no industry will cut its own profits for the long-term good of the world or humanity or its own nation unless it is made to do so.   Historically, and demonstrably still,  the profit motive alone does not result in sound thinking and decision-making.   Wishful thinking, "Maybe it will never happen" is not the same as reality.

Much as I loathe that smug SOB at the head of BP--and I do--he is not the only villain here.  Look back at the list of members of Congress who gleefully dismantled regulatory oversight of the petroleum industry, just as they did of the banking industry.   Look at the funding for the agencies tasked with monitoring environmental issues; look at the executive orders former president Bush tossed out like caltrops to hamper them in their duties.   Look at the deliberate lack of funding for research into sustainable energy sources; the ridicule heaped on those who kept trying, the smug certainty that there would be oil, and we should have as much as we wanted.  Look at that idiot Joe Barton (R-TX)  expressing sympathy for poor BP (until wiser heads shut him up) and Senator Cornyn (also R-TX)  throwing a hissy fit about a few AWOL Afghans to draw attention away from BP and the oil problem.  Had those US politicians not been in bed with the petroleum industry,  had their compaigns not depended on contributions from those corporations,  had they paid the slightest attention to the realities...it's just possible they'd have at least demanded proof that the various "safety measures" actually worked.  It's just possible they'd have listened to those who correctly predicted the kind of disaster that a major leak in the Gulf would be. 

Right about now the stockholders of BP should be preparing to oust their entire top level of management.  And voters in the Gulf states should be preparing to dump every Republican up for re-election out on his/her ear this fall.   And the Supreme Court should be considering its rulings that corporate campaign contributions can be unlimited while corporate responsibility is limited.   Human nature being what it is, I don't have much hope of that, nor of those actually responsible admitting their error and changing their ways.   But a little hope is better than none.




LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: jordan179
2010-06-21 02:14 pm (UTC)
And to speak of inactions, why hasn't the government suspended/waived the Jones act so more skimmers can help?

Obama has in general shown very poor management skills in this crisis. Looks like the Republicans had a point when they said that his lack of executive experience would cost the country dearly if he was elected.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: entp2007
2010-06-21 03:30 pm (UTC)
The main culprits are BP, Halliburton, and TransOcean. Do not forget that. They only care about one thing. Profit. BP went into damage control mode the minute the Deepwater Horizon went down. They started trying to pay off fisherman before oil reach the marshes, forcing survivors of the rig to sign statements, and spraying a dispersant (banned in the UK) at depth to hide the magnitude of the leak. They've continually lied about how much is leaking. They prevented workers from wearing protective gear.

President Obama has done a pretty amazing job since he's been in office. I do have grave concerns about some of the things he's done. But he's been dealing with crises since day 1 in office, and it is Republican stonewalling that has prevented him from accomplishing more. They are not interested in solving any of serious problems facing the nation. I'm not happy with some of the Democrats either. If I'm unhappy with the Federal response and President Obama, it's because of the corporate corruption and malfeasance that is keeping them from doing their job.

Remember it is BP is burning sea turtles alive while Tony Hayward sails on his luxury yacht far from the disaster. We know President Obama can do better and we must remind him of that. Sarah Palin said we should pray to God to fix the leak. That shows what kind of leadership we might have had instead.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jordan179
2010-06-22 02:47 am (UTC)
President Obama has done a pretty amazing job since he's been in office.

Really? Name some of his "amazing" achievements, aside from merely being elected President.

But he's been dealing with crises since day 1 in office, and it is Republican stonewalling that has prevented him from accomplishing more.

They have refused to blindly sign on to every one of his proposals. Did the Democrats treat George W. Bush better?

If I'm unhappy with the Federal response and President Obama, it's because of the corporate corruption and malfeasance that is keeping them from doing their job.

How exactly did "corporate corruption and malfeasance" force the Federal government to refuse to suspend the Jones Act, and to stop Governor Jindal from deploying his own protective booms?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2010-06-22 01:14 pm (UTC)
A reminder: this is not your space. Be polite or be deleted. So far you're sounding like a troll: this is your warning.

Let me remind you who set up the situation in which Obama became President: the Republican president and Congress had trashed the country's economy, with resulting failures of businesses, job loss and concomitant unemployment, foreclosures and concomitant homelessness, finishing off with a 700-billion plus bailout for Wall Street banking and insurance interests which did damn all for most citizens...the Republican president and Congress had started a two-front war which not only vastly increased the national debt (since they had refused to raise taxes to pay for it) but also severely damaged the reputation and credibility of this nation and cost us the whole-hearted support of former allies, making us more vulnerable to both known and unknown enemies because the Republican Administration had supported practices (including torture) that violated treaties this nation had signed...the Republican president and Congress had systematically attacked regulatory agencies, especially those tasked with environmental concerns, resulting in massive damage to the natural resources of this nation and others and their failure to support infrastructure maintenance meant that every part of the public infrastructure--roads, bridges, dams, etc--was in worse shape when they left than when they were elected.

You forget--or prefer to hide--the fact that the previous Administration had a majority in both houses of Congress, and that the Republicans "blindly" (as you put it) supported Dubya in everything he asked for. Every stupid, ignorant, wrong-headed decision he made...and he made plenty. Republicans are still singing the same song that got us into this mess--and by that I mean the whole mess they created, economic, political and environmental--without recognizing, let alone admitting, the realities that they ignored for all those years.

So what has Obama done? What he could with what was left to him and what a fragile and undependable Congressional alliance would allow. Unemployment is down, there is some grassroots recovery economically. Some infrastructure repair has been started. Some agencies are able to function more normally now...but Republican opposition and stonewalling has prevented many of his appointments to agency positions from being being filled, thus impeding those agencies in doing their work...which the Republicans don't want done. In Dubya's day, with a clear majority in both houses, all his appointments to agencies sailed through...despite the fact that he was appointing foxes to guard henhouses.



(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2010-06-22 12:51 pm (UTC)
Compared to Dubya's experience from which he learned nothing?

A man who did not see the financial implications of cutting income (cutting taxes) and increasing spending (starting wars)?

A man whose "management skills" during Katrina consisted of...what, exactly? Certainly not quick response to the misery of New Orleans' poor? Certainly reining in the racially motivated mean-spirited spite of white communities that forced people to remain in flooded conditions without food or water for days. Certainly not devising a plan for evacuation or temporary housing or permanent recovery that respected the integrity of families or the dignity of individuals.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jordan179
2010-06-22 01:38 pm (UTC)
A man who did not see the financial implications of cutting income (cutting taxes) and increasing spending (starting wars)?

The "financial implications" vary, depending on where one is on the Laffer Curve. If tax rates are above the sweet spot, cutting them will actually increase and increasing them actually decrease revenues.

A man whose "management skills" during Katrina consisted of...what, exactly? Certainly not quick response to the misery of New Orleans' poor?

He responded within three days. Obama remained inert for many weeks. So on that metric, Bush did better than Obama.

Certainly reining in the racially motivated mean-spirited spite of white communities that forced people to remain in flooded conditions without food or water for days.

Not sure what you mean by that. How would less "racism" have gotten the New Orleans survivors out of the flooded neighborhoods, or provided them food and water?

Certainly not devising a plan for evacuation or temporary housing or permanent recovery that respected the integrity of families or the dignity of individuals.

I think that the idea was to save lives first, with all other considerations being secondary.




(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2010-06-22 02:13 pm (UTC)
You ARE funny. Let's move from snow jobs to reality: Bush cut taxes and increased spending and the debt load (as could have been predicted) went through the roof. If in fact income had increased, the debt load would not have increased as fast as it did.

What you say about Katrina would be funny if not for the suffering of those in the midst of it.

Let's start at the back end. You claim that Bush's idea was to save lives first with all other considerations being secondary. In fact, his stated interest from the beginning was to protect property--to prevent looting. When asked if people without food or water would be considered looters for taking food and water from stores, Bush said yes, they were criminals.

Civilian organizations such as the Salvation Army and others, ready to move in and give aid, some from where I live, were prevented by troops from giving aid; the first troops into the city did not bring food or water for citizens and were under the command of a man who publicly stated he was ready to fire on citizens in distress "to preserve order." Minimal amounts of water and food--not nearly enough--were dropped on people from helicopters. Evacuation buses were delayed when white drivers refused to drive into the city for fear of violence--they sat beyond reach for several days, and when people were finally put on those buses, they were not provided with food or water for the journey. Mercenaries (including Blackwater) were hired by both individuals and the federal government to protect property and hindered rescue efforts especially in black neighborhoods. They also hindered recovery efforts--I have friends in the utilities industry who went to New Orleans when private initiatives were finally allowed back in, to restore power in some neighborhoods--and were constantly harrassed by these mercenaries who claimed legal authority they did not, in fact, have.

I find it incredible that you are not aware of the racism that kept black citizens of New Orleans from reaching aid--or have you conveniently forgotten about the white men of Gretna blocking public roads with guns because they didn't want black people coming into, or even walking through, their pristine little oasis? Have you forgotten the people stranded on overpasses in the hot sun, with no shelter, no food, no water? Have you forgotten how Bush promised Trent Lott that *his* house on the Gulf would be repaired, while making no promises to the many people in New Orleans whose houses had been flooded?

And perhaps you've forgotten that Bush claimed the Katrina disaster couldn't have been foreseen...when it had been foreseen and discussed openly for years.

But you are determined to whitewash Bush. Fine. Go do it somewhere else.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: catsittingstill
2010-06-25 01:19 pm (UTC)
The "financial implications" vary, depending on where one is on the Laffer Curve. If tax rates are above the sweet spot, cutting them will actually increase and increasing them actually decrease revenues.

The theory that it might under some rare circumstances, be possible to increase tax revenue by cutting taxes (if cutting taxes boosts the economy enough) does not mitigate the actual data that, in this case eight years of tax cuts 1) obviously didn't fix the economy (unless one uses it in the sense of "Boy, he fixed *that* economy but *good*!") and 2) didn't boost tax revenue, and the fact that it wouldn't was well known beforehand.

Cutting income and increasing spending has an obvious effect.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)