These Guys Just Can't Do Anything Right

[dales]

Anyone hear how the BP Gulf environmental safety concern checklist was cut & pasted from Exxon's Alaskan checklist, including 'walruses' and 'ice floes'?

Scary, isn't it.

[Lord Jim]

Reality...

How does anything that Union Carbide did in 1984 excuse what BP has done in 2010?

Not getting the connection....

You know, I'm beginning to see a pattern emerging here...

It appears that some of our UK members want to be defensive of BP by pointing fingers at the bad actions of American companies....

Let me stipulate to a couple of things:

1.There are many fine British companies (Virgin is one of my favorites; I love their cell service and their airline...there are many others) I certainly did not start this thread to engage in some sort of "British Bashing" (I am the last person on earth who would be interested in doing that...I'm an Anglophile...I've been flying The Union Jack along with the Stars and Stripes outside our house since 9/11, fercrissakes)

2.There are many beastly American companies.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't care if BP was an American company, or an Uzbeki company, my reaction would be the same.

As more and more comes out about the unbelievable, terrifying way this particular company has operated... With quality standards so low that even Haliburton objected... with a record of citations and fines for violations so numerous that they are a significant multiple of all other oil companies combined ...(apparently this crew has level of recklessness in the pursuit of rapacious greed that is way out of bounds even by OIL COMPANY standards )

And given the willful and deliberate recklessness with which they made a whole series of inexcusable choices in the development of this well, which if they hadn't been made would almost certainly have prevented this historic disaster....

And given the enormous and foreseeable downside of these decisions...

I conclude that their behavior is so egregious, so far bellow even the lowest standards of a fairly venal industry, that they have operated more like a terrorist organization than a corporation....

I would feel precisely the same if the company involved was Chevron.

I strongly suggest that if you get a chance, watch the video of Hayward's testimony last week. Or at least do a search to look at some of the internal documents and memos generated by BP (and other companies sent to BP) that the Congressional Committee investigating this obtained and released.

It'll curl your hair....

[Reality Bytes]

As a matter of fact I haven't posted word one in defence or otherwise of BP, I merely posted an article that was written in one of our news papers and I did so without comment quite intentionally Jim.

You know, I'm beginning to see a pattern emerging here...

It appears that some of our UK members want to be defensive of BP by pointing fingers at the bad actions of American companies....

I'm mystified Jim, where is the pattern exactly? I don't recall reading any other UK member or any other member at all actually discussing BP or Bhopal here previously let alone defending BP or pointing fingers at bad American companies, I know for a certainty you haven't read anything of the sort from me, as I haven't posted anything anywhere on the net at ALL relating to BP prior to posting that article.

[Lord Jim]

Strop posted an article, (you may not have seen it...he removed it because he got a message that the article contained warez) talking about what a bad company Haliburton is....

Then you post an article that talks about what a bad company Union Carbide is...

That's the pattern I'm referring to....

If we had a thread about some bad thing George W. Bush had done, and I posted an article in that thread about some bad thing Bill Clinton did, I believe people would infer that I was in a left handed way, attempting to "defend" Bush by pointing out something that I thought Clinton had done that was as bad or worse. (Perhaps "defend" isn't the best word...maybe "minimize" or somehow try to make look "less bad" would be a better way to put it.)

[Reality Bytes]

Ah OK - no I hadn't seen the article Strop posted I thought I'd missed an entire thread or something

"minimise" wasn't my intention with the posting of the article at all - rather I was curious and still am as to why this particular incident seems to have created so much vitriol and posturing, particularily when the Bhopal case was actually back in the courts this very week so it is relevant that the 2 companies and incidents are being contrasted given that both are CURRENT issues.

[Lord Jim]

I was curious and still am as to why this particular incident seems to have created so much vitriol and posturing,

I can explain that for you RB:

It's because a significant portion of the US coastline and fishing grounds are facing the prospect of total devastation. To put this oil spill in a little perspective, the previous largest oil spill in history was the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, which released 11 million gallons off the coast of Alaska. The best estimates at this point on this spill is that there has already been 50-60 million gallons released. Put another way, this spill is releasing the equivalent of the total previous worst oil spill every ten days....A while some of what is being released is now being captured, there is no anticipation that the flow will be stopped until the end of August. Which means it's going to get worse...much worse.

On top of that, the Gulf Coast is not the only portion of the US coastline that is threatened with this. There is a very real possibility that a significant portion of this spill could be carried into the Atlantic by what is called "the loop current" wreaking further devastation to the fishing and tourism industries along the US Atlantic seaboard all the way to the mid Atlantic States. In other words, the potential exists for this spill to ruin lives and industries all along the coast from New Orleans on the Gulf, to The Chesapeake Bay on the Atlantic.

And to top it all off, hurricane season is coming to the affected region, and after a couple of light seasons, this one is predicted to create a fair number of storms. Storm surges could push the oil well inland, polluting water supplies destroying more wetland areas. (My understanding of the science involved is that at least the oil will not be pulled up into the storms creating a situation where it would create an "oil rain". )

[Grim Reaper]

I've had the hearing with Hayward on in the background....

The first thing I'd like to say is that my gast was completely flabbered when GOP Rep. Joe Barton "apologized" to Hayward for the compensation fund deal negociated by the Obama Administration (for which I give Obama kudos...it looks like a pretty good set up) He even went so far as to try to imply that it was some sort of a "shakedown" that would end the Justice Department criminal investigation. (There is absolutely zero evidence of this.)

It should be pointed out that the other Republicans have distanced themselves from the remarks of this imbecile. (Even John Boehner issued a statement criticizing Barton) in fact another Republican on the Committee, Rep. Burgess, really ripped Hayward apart...Before the recess he said that given Hayward's apparent lack of knowledge, "any one of us could do his job" .

Hayward himself is coming across abysmally. Arrogant and ignorant is not a winning combination... The man has worked in the industry for 28 years, he comes from an engineering background, he's the CEO of the company, but apparently he knows absolutely nothing....

Based on his performance, when BP releases their next round of commercials, I know just who the spokesman should be:

And here's Vice President Biden's response to Barton's 'apology':

[Lord Jim]

I see that the Democrats are desperately attempting to morph the comments of that moron Joe Barton into official Republican Party policy....

I understand why the have embarked on this shamelessly dishonest and disingenuous course. (Literally dozens of high profile Republican leaders have come forward to condemn his stupid remarks...starting with the House GOP leadership) They are looking at a serious pasting in the mid-term elections, and they're foundering about, desperately trying to find something...anything.... to try and hold down their losses so that they can hang onto control of the House.

But I think they're going to have go to back to the drawing board and come up with something else. Given the breadth and depth of the rejection by Republicans of Barton's remarks, I doubt that there are many voters (who weren't already hardcore Demo votes in the first place) who will be ignorant enough to fall for a lie this flagrant.

[Crackpot]

Uhh Jim they were perusing that policy up until Ol' Joe decided to apologize to BP.

In fact the daily show did quite the expose on that last night.

I'd link it but i appears they don't have it up just yet.

[Lord Jim]

They were pursuing the policy that the 20 billion dollar fund was a "shakedown"? They were pursing a policy that said the only recourse the people being crushed financially should be in the courts?

Really? Who was doing that?

[Crackpot]

Michelle "I can't keep my foot out of me mouth" Bachman, and Haley Barber among others IIRC.

[Crackpot]

I'll post the link when it comes up

[Crackpot]

5 am Jim Really? Don't you get any sleep?

[Lord Jim]

5 am Jim Really? Don't you get any sleep?

Not Much...

Michelle "I can't keep my foot out of me mouth" Bachman, and Haley Barber among others IIRC.

Bachman doesn't surprise me...but she's not really a party leader of any sort, she's a diarrhea-of-the-mouth type rogue...

You must be mistaken about Barbour. I saw him interviewed extensively on Meet The Press and he made very clear, repeatedly, the he completely disagrees with what Barton said, and that he fully supports this fund. (I've always liked Haley, going back to when he was GOP Chairman. His political instincts are generally pretty sharp, and on top of that, he's the Governor of a Gulf Coast state...it would have been extremely out of character for him to agree with Barton's politically toxic position.)

I believe Rush Limbaugh may have said some dopey things about this...I saw a clip last week where he was saying that he thought this money might go to groups like Acorn and labor unions. (That's just ridiculous. This fund was established to pay out directly to people who are losing their shirts. It's being run by the guy Bush appointed to handle the 9/11 payouts; a program that whiile it had a few glitches, won widespread praise.)

But Limbaugh is NOT a leader of the Republican Party, though I know that there are a lot of Democrats who would dearly love to be able to convince people that he is....(Trying to make Rush Limbaugh out to be the leader of the GOP, is there second greatest wet dream....Their first greatest, of course, is believing that Sarah Palin could actually get the Republican Presidential nomination.)

(This is funny...I see the Firefox Browser Still doesn't recognize, "Palin"....one of the recommended possibilities for changing it to is "Pain"... )

[Crackpot]

About Barbour... Yeah that was the odd thing about it I'm pretty sure it was him though. I'll find out in a half our at least (when the rerun airs) still no luck on the web posting tho.

[Crackpot]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... e-21-2010-

what do you know

It starts about 3:20 in

[Lord Jim]

Well, it looks to me from what he said, versus what he said later, the mistake he made initially was that he spoke before having all the facts about how the fund was going to be set up. It seems to me that his concern was that the company not be on the hook for more than it could afford to pay and still remain in business, (since obviously if they went bankrupt it would be very difficult and lengthy for people to recover their money.)

It looks to me like his concerns were aimed more at making sure people got paid; rather than trying to protect or defend BP.

[Sue U]

After the attempt to use the party's new "shakedown" meme (see Republican Study Committee talking points of 6-16-10) spectacularly backfired with Barton, Barbour realized he had stepped in it and then tried to walk his statements back. Another tone-deaf attempt at political theater gone horribly awry for the GOPsters, who failed to realize that nobody except their campaign committees are terribly concerned about BP's continuing ability to rake in obscene profits and avoid serious environmental and safety regulation.

[Lord Jim]

Well, that memo was ill advised, but Stewart was being misleading when he seemed to imply that it had somehow been endorsed by two thirds of the GOP Caucus. That memo wasn't endorsed by anyone. It was written and published by a staffer who used poor judgment. It was written by somebody who was trying to come up with some angle to find to criticize Obama on this, without thinking it through.

Barbour realized he had stepped in it and then tried to walk his statements back.

While I have no doubt that is how the Dems are going to try to spin it, that just isn't the way it looks to me from those clips. It looks like he spoke before he understood how the fund was structured.

I suppose this would be clearer if one saw the whole initial interview, but obviously Stewart has an agenda here in trying to re-inforce the DNC talking point position.

[Sue U]

That memo wasn't endorsed by anyone. It was written and published by a staffer who used poor judgment.

Um, yeah, keep telling yourself that:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
6.16.2010

Chicago-Style Political Shakedown

Washington, Jun 16 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after the White House announced it had reached a deal with BP to require the oil company to place $20 billion into an escrow fund to pay claims filed against the company in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.

“We all agree that BP should be held fully responsible for its complicity in the oil tragedy in the Gulf,” said Chairman Price. “In fact, BP has already begun paying claims. Any attempt by the company to sidestep that responsibility should be met with the strongest legal recourses available. However, in an administration that appears not to respect fundamental American principles, it is important to note that there is no legal authority for the President to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account.

“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda. The American people know much better.”

###

Congressman Tom Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

(emphases added)
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/Docu ... tID=191125

Also:

The Republican Study Committee is a group of over 115 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives.

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/AboutRSC/

ETA:

By the way, this "staffer['s] ... poor judgment" is still posted on the RSC website as its official position.

Way to go, Congressional conservatards! Work that populist rage!