Environmental and Human Rights Catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico

[Neytiri]

YouTube - We the People have a RIght to Sue BP! They Killed An Ocean! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNrR_07Ewdw)

YouTube - Most Unreported Part Of Gulf Oil Spill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQq1RINZUnM)

I notice that a lot of Avatar fans feel guilty and blame themselves for a lot of the bad things that are happening in our world... because they realize their own component of responsibility... but we cannot carry the weight of the world on our shoulders... we DO need to realize that we, each and every last one of us through our complacent lifestyles, are enablers... but we must not allow disasters like this to give our government even more excuses to further regulate US, the people. They need to start better regulating, THEM the corporations. This is a crucial differentiation that needs to be made. Because if we keep passing the buck to the government, and don't really take an active role in our own lives to begin to change our society grassroots fundamentally from the bottom up, the values and beliefs of every American, then our government will keep being corrupt, we will keep having environmental disasters, and people will keep losing their rights, while corporations get a longer and longer leash every day.

So what can you do? Be angry, very very angry. If you're not angry, then you must have your head in the sand. After you get angry, start talking to everyone you know about this and all the other issues you care about... they might call you a tree hugger, kooky, whatever.... it doesn't matter... Even if it was you alone against the world, you are still morally bound to defend and fight for what you feel is right in your own conscience, this is what it means to take responsibility as a human being... but the good news is that you're far from alone... just look at this forum alone... and there are so many people out there in the world just waiting for the right person to speak up for them and inspire them to free their own voice....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bZ_es_DHz4

Only by changing the fundamental values of society, will we be able to change society, and only by speaking up for what we believe in will we be able to influence the thoughts and opinions of those around us.... Don't wait another moment... the struggle is on right now... speak up... outside this forum... on other websites, and especially in the real world!! To your family and friends, to strangers at the bus stop, to your grocery store cashier... anyone and everyone needs to hear, to know, a voice of sanity... because it takes hearing one, to recognize it and it takes hear it repeatedly from more and more people, to muster the courage to repeat those words of sanity and pass them on. If all you hear your whole life from everyone around you family and friends is: eat McD's french fries and watch American Idol... you will be one sad, unhealthy, uninformed human being indeed, but do yourself, your friends, your family and your great great great grandchildren a favor... and speak up for sanity... just one word... see how it makes you feel... and then another and another, and then just don't ever stop... becuase this is the only way this world is every going to change... and don't just talk, walk the walk too... start living a life of real conscience, compassion, health and sanity...
It's time to "cure ourselves of our insanity" we need to do it ourselves, no one will do it for us... not our oil companies, not our government... we the people... We must be our own leaders, or we will be led like sheep to slaughter by our corrupt leaders whom we have ignorantly allowed to lead us because we are too busy chasing God knows what, to pay attention to what really matters in our lives... the most enslaved people are those that don't even know they are enslaved... our minds are in a box... it's time for humanity to break through the box... start living a life of real conscience, compassion, health and sanity... and the harsh truth of the matter is, the only way change will happen is for tough strong people to do this, no matter how much outside pressure from society to conform... we have been complacent for too many generations... its time for another revolution... but not a violent revolution... a peaceful, spiritual revolution that changes everything from the bottom up, not on a bloody battlefield.... and if you're living according to your conscience, and you're not giving in, you're fighting that battle right now... if you're eating vegan when others are hunting, if you're hunting when others are factory farming, if you're telling the truth when others are lying, if you're staying close to family while others move across the world for a bigger salary, if you lend a helping hand when other just pass by the man lying on the ground, if you don't buy a second car cause you know how utterly ridiculous it is when a lifestyle has to necessitate that... if you stand up for sanity, moderation, health, conscience, compassion, honesty, decency, truth, trust, responsibility, humanity, and something better for our world, despite the tidal wave assaulting you to do otherwise... I salute you.

[Spock]

BP needs shooting.

[Tsyal Makto]

BP needs shooting.

This.

I want to force-feed Tony Hayward some of that sludge.:nangry:

[AuroraGlacialis]

TV News report on the next 90 days of continous oil leaking, Hale Burton, BPs limited liability, business-as-usual, health of cleanup workers and the death of everything in the northern gulf of Mexico:

BP Oil Spill Worsens With No Solution in Sight, 210,000 Gallons a Day Spew into Gulf of Mexico (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/3/bp_oil_spill_worsens_with_no) (video)



Federal authorities have banned commercial and recreational fishing in a large stretch of water in the Gulf of Mexico due to the massive oil spill caused by a BP-operated rig that exploded nearly two weeks ago. An estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day is pouring into the Gulf in what might turn out to be the worst industrial environmental disaster in U.S. history. We speak with Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist and a former commercial salmon fisherma’am from Alaska who experienced firsthand the devastating effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. [Includes rush transcript]

[Imperius Dictatio]

I'll repeat this.

-We have NO IDEA what cuased the explosion or why it how the event was tiggered, all we know is that at the end of the Roughnecks shift the power went off and was followed by several loud thuds then a geyser of gas, oil and mud shooting through the bottom of the rig leading to an explosion and gas fire.
-Next the Oil Rig did not belong to BP.
-There has not been a blow out this bad in decades. The worst blowout being the Sedco 135F in mexico back in '79.
-Accidents happen. Grow up.

[Zapgun]

The environment will be fine.

Death however is forever, how do you think the roughnecks family will feel when a police officer shows up at your door.

"Ma'am, I am sorry, it is about your husband..."

Ive had friends die on me for what appears to be the most arbitrary of reasons... it is not a fun feeling, I would see dozens of beaches ruin then to condone or rationalize a single senseless death.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Well, as ID said - accidents happen. And they cost lives evry day. So yes, this is horrible for the families but it is an accident. But for BP to start such a risky project at all is questionable - but what really kicks it is, that the safely measures to prevent the oil spill (maybe not the explosion but the ecological damage) have not been implemented. For gods sake they have thought something like this may happen one day, they had devised methods to prevent this and they did not implement it because it would cost money. They even influenced the politicians to not make laws to requite such measurements. This is reckless! And @zapgun, you do not see the damage in the right light. It is not about some beaches beeing dirty or some animals dying but also people suffer and will eventually become ill or even die because of this. Many people, not just single persons. Basically the whole coast becomes a massive toxic cleanup site with hundreds of workers risking life and health to clean it up. And the environment will not be fine. I am getting really angry now at the ignorance and lack of knowledge of people who say this. For fracks sake look at the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.
Biodegradation of oil contaminants takes years or decades and the byproducts are not pretty either. And I work in that area of biological research, so I frankly think, I am the one who knows best about this here, unless some of you work in a similar field? anyone?

[brianct]

'They need to start better regulating, THEM the corporations'

one reasons corporations lobby govts is to ensure that THEY dont regulate them!AND they largley succeed with right wing govts(eg US)...left wing oners try to enforce control of them, and come under attack by the defenders of capital.
Thats whats meant by FREE market...free of any sort of oversight.

the environment will not be fine,...those who say it is are like the denizens of Hells gates: safely locked away in a air tight container...

[Zapgun]

So it is an us vs them situation right now? No compromise? No considering of a hundred other factors? I dont think corporate regulation will stop acts of God, I could be finally perfecting my cure to the common cold, the miracle of medical science, and the centrifuge I am using lets go of all the test tubes and they go flying and shatter in my face blinding me for life and destroying my cure and all my notes. Is it anyones fault? No, it was an act of God that caused this, no one could prepare for a test tube to shatter in the doctors face and ruin all his notes beyond comprehension.

What would regulation of the corporations do? What would pointing fingers do to stop the oil slick Bianct? I dont think the oil slick is an employee of BP that they can tell to stop doing what its doing.

[brianct]

So it is an us vs them situation right now? No compromise? No considering of a hundred other factors? I dont think corporate regulation will stop acts of God, I could be finally perfecting my cure to the common cold, the miracle of medical science, and the centrifuge I am using lets go of all the test tubes and they go flying and shatter in my face blinding me for life and destroying my cure and all my notes. Is it anyones fault? No, it was an act of God that caused this, no one could prepare for a test tube to shatter in the doctors face and ruin all his notes beyond comprehension.

What would regulation of the corporations do? What would pointing fingers do to stop the oil slick Bianct? I dont think the oil slick is an employee of BP that they can tell to stop doing what its doing.

since when is an oil drilling rig an act of god? But any CEO may feel a touch of hubris...

regulating corporations would help prevent them from screwing the rest of us and polluting mother nature...who is clearly NOT your mother!


Common cold was cured ages ago...this oil slick came out of the belly of the beast: BP, who will now try to dodge responsibility...

[Shatnerpossum]

Well, as ID said - accidents happen. And they cost lives evry day. So yes, this is horrible for the families but it is an accident. But for BP to start such a risky project at all is questionable - but what really kicks it is, that the safely measures to prevent the oil spill (maybe not the explosion but the ecological damage) have not been implemented. For gods sake they have thought something like this may happen one day, they had devised methods to prevent this and they did not implement it because it would cost money. They even influenced the politicians to not make laws to requite such measurements. This is reckless! And @zapgun, you do not see the damage in the right light. It is not about some beaches beeing dirty or some animals dying but also people suffer and will eventually become ill or even die because of this. Many people, not just single persons. Basically the whole coast becomes a massive toxic cleanup site with hundreds of workers risking life and health to clean it up. And the environment will not be fine. I am getting really angry now at the ignorance and lack of knowledge of people who say this. For fracks sake look at the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.
Biodegradation of oil contaminants takes years or decades and the byproducts are not pretty either. And I work in that area of biological research, so I frankly think, I am the one who knows best about this here, unless some of you work in a similar field? anyone?

The project wasn't risky. Drilling rigs are nothing new, and nothing especially dangerous. Thats why this came as such a surprise. Its also worth noting that BP didn't OWN the rig.

Now as to environmental damage, the US military has corralled the slick and is going to burn it off. That will minimize what actually reaches Louisiana. So it probably won't be as bad as the Valdez.

And BP has promised to seal the well itself within a week.

Its not the end of the world, its just an unfortunate circumstance that we can address.


since when is an oil drilling rig an act of god? But any CEO may feel a touch of hubris...

regulating corporations would help prevent them from screwing the rest of us and polluting mother nature...who is clearly NOT your mother!


Common cold was cured ages ago...this oil slick came out of the belly of the beast: BP, who will now try to dodge responsibility...

A random explosion IS an act of God. How about you head over to an oil company and work in an office for a couple years to see just how much regulation there is.

Tone down your indignation for the love of God, no one did anything deliberately. Accidents happen.

And as to BP and responsibility...

"BP takes responsibility for responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We will clean it up,"

The company also said that it will pay all necessary and appropriate clean-up expenses.

British Petroleum plans to place a steel dome to cover the leak on Tuesday.

BP Oil Spill & Cost (http://www.newsoxy.com/bp/oil-spill-cost-12988.html)

[brianct]

The project wasn't risky. Drilling rigs are nothing new, and nothing especially dangerous. Thats why this came as such a surprise. Its also worth noting that BP didn't OWN the rig.

Now as to environmental damage, the US military has corralled the slick and is going to burn it off. That will minimize what actually reaches Louisiana. So it probably won't be as bad as the Valdez.

And BP has promised to seal the well itself within a week.

Its not the end of the world, its just an unfortunate circumstance that we can address.

how are u addressing it, beyond acting as unpaid PR?

drilling rigs werent around 200 years ago..they are new to mother nature...

heres the long list of the short history of oil spills

List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills)

wont be as bad as the Valdez? It will be worse

"The United States Congress should meet in emergency session and pass a law that the corporate heads of companies that wreak environmental devastation should be subject to criminal prosecution, up to and including capital punishment. All limits on civil liability must be lifted."

beyond the Bilge: what BP is REALLY doing:

'tonight that he has told representatives of BP Plc. that they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians.

The agreements, King said, essentially require that people give up the right to sue in exchange for payment of up to $5,000'
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/bp_told_to_stop_circulating_se.html

[Shatnerpossum]

how are u addressing it, beyond acting as unpaid PR?

drilling rigs werent around 200 years ago..they are new to mother nature...

heres the long list of the short history of oil spills

List of oil spills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills)

wont be as bad as the Valdez? It will be worse

I'm addressing it by pointing out what IS being done to get some positive views in here.

I'm familiar with oil spills, posting a wikipedia list doesn't prove anything but what I already know.

And I said that if the US military effort to deal with the majority of the spill is successful, it probably won't be as bad as the Valdez.


"The United States Congress should meet in emergency session and pass a law that the corporate heads of companies that wreak environmental devastation should be subject to criminal prosecution, up to and including capital punishment. All limits on civil liability must be lifted."

beyond the Bilge: what BP is REALLY doing:

'tonight that he has told representatives of BP Plc. that they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians.

The agreements, King said, essentially require that people give up the right to sue in exchange for payment of up to $5,000'
BP told to stop circulating settlement agreements with coastal Alabamians | al.com (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/bp_told_to_stop_circulating_se.html)

Where to begin with this?

1. The suggestion is quite insane, I shouldn't have to tell you each miserable detail of why.
2. As if part of a sentence actually yields any valuable information?
3. When will you realize that a blog is not a news source? Its like if I cited Rush Limbaugh.

[brianct]

i thought you like to see what a psychopathic corporate entity REALLY does! as opposed to what you THINK they do or what they say...

so stop acting as BPs unpaid PR flack.

[Shatnerpossum]

Because listening to some guy's psychopathic blog is really truth. Bull. I'm pretty sick of your approach to everything. Let me sum it up for you so you know what to STOP doing.

1. Situation occurs
2. You exploit situation to promote conspiracy
3. You cite said conspiracy with opinions
4. Someone calls your lack of evidence.
5. You attack them


Probably the most annoying part is when you play the egotism of conspiracists. Only YOU know the truth, EVERYONE else is an idiot. Well I've heard this a hundred times on every topic imaginable, from JFK to the middle east, to guns, to the President, to this. And every conspiracy I've ever seen is supported by nuts and held together by paranoia and egotism.

[brianct]

I'm addressing it by pointing out what IS being done to get some positive views in here.

I'm familiar with oil spills, posting a wikipedia list doesn't prove anything but what I already know.

And I said that if the US military effort to deal with the majority of the spill is successful, it probably won't be as bad as the Valdez.


Positive views are the bread and butter of PR flacks...
the US miltiary has a history of serving corporate entities


=========================================

'Because listening to some guy's psychopathic blog is really truth. Bull. I'm pretty sick of your approach to everything. Let me sum it up for you so you know what to STOP doing.

1. Situation occurs
2. You exploit situation to promote conspiracy
3. You cite said conspiracy with opinions
4. Someone calls your lack of evidence.
5. You attack them


Probably the most annoying part is when you play the egotism of conspiracists. Only YOU know the truth, EVERYONE else is an idiot. Well I've heard this a hundred times on every topic imaginable, from JFK to the middle east, to guns, to the President, to this. And every conspiracy I've ever seen is supported by nuts and held together by paranoia and egotism.'
------------------------------------

i recognise you for what you are...see above...

as for the Truth,...oil technology gives rise to environmental disasters...none of which have affected you directly..hence you smug positive outlook.

[Shatnerpossum]

Positive views are the bread and butter of PR flacks...
the US miltiary has a history of serving corporate entities


=========================================

'Because listening to some guy's psychopathic blog is really truth. Bull. I'm pretty sick of your approach to everything. Let me sum it up for you so you know what to STOP doing.

1. Situation occurs
2. You exploit situation to promote conspiracy
3. You cite said conspiracy with opinions
4. Someone calls your lack of evidence.
5. You attack them


Probably the most annoying part is when you play the egotism of conspiracists. Only YOU know the truth, EVERYONE else is an idiot. Well I've heard this a hundred times on every topic imaginable, from JFK to the middle east, to guns, to the President, to this. And every conspiracy I've ever seen is supported by nuts and held together by paranoia and egotism.'
------------------------------------

i recognise you for what you are...see above...

as for the Truth,...oil technology gives rise to environmental disasters...none of which have affected you directly..hence you smug positive outlook.

FYI, flack is short for Flugzeugabwehr-Kanone which means anti-aircraft gun.

Maybe next time my military won't bring humanitarian aid to starving and sick people, or maybe we'll leave people on their roofs when it floods. Maybe then you'll be grateful.

[applejuice]

as for the Truth,...oil technology gives rise to environmental disasters...none of which have affected you directly..hence you smug positive outlook.
But you seem to use a lot of the technology that oil has brought to the world, because the plastic in your computer, the clothes you are wearing, the shoes you use, the TV you watch, the isolator on the cables that connect you with the Internet, all of them have been developed around hydrocarbons and those come straight from the oil.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Well - very deep sea oil drilling is not really old. This list: Semi-submersible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semisubmersible#Offshore_Production_Platforms) shows that before the year 2000, oil production was in depths of some hundreds of meters, only after that, they started to drill in depths below that, taking an increased risk(!) as that area is much harder to work on in case of failure.

What I criticize most about this incident is not that it happened at all (no one can predict it, although obviously it is another case of people overestimating the safety of technology), but that important safety measures (backup blowout preventors, remote controlled blowout preventors) that have been suggested have not been adopted. Other countries like Norway require such measures, but the US regulators have been talked out of this by lobbyists because of the "high expenses" for oil companies!

The containment measures are nice - but they are not 100% effective. Especially if the weather goes bad. We'll see how well that dome works for capturing leaking oil, AFAIK this is a new method, so let's hope it'll work. The leak itself will not be fixed with that though - that will take an estimated 90 days.

Oh and I don't care which of the two corporations Transocean Ltd (how can such a company be allowed to be founded as a Ltd with limited liability anyways!) or BP owned, leased, operated or managed the rig or who paid the wages of the workers. Such manners are often used to hide responsabilites and make things complicated, but in this case, BP has already taken on the responsability, so I will keep blaming BP for what has happened.

[Imperius Dictatio]

Snip.

*Headdesk* Read what I said. BP did not own the Rig.
Such blowouts are extremely rare. While these things do happen it's something no one can perdict them or where they will happen.
The proper response is to not get bent out of shape until we know what cuased the light up. It could have been an accident. Could have been human error hell it could have eveb been foul play. But we wont know that until someone investigates.

[brianct]

just lettin ya know man.

Since you hate AVATAR and the environment, why are you here if not to troll?same with your imperial pals


FYI, flack is short for Flugzeugabwehr-Kanone which means anti-aircraft gun.

Maybe next time my military won't bring humanitarian aid to starving and sick people, or maybe we'll leave people on their roofs when it floods. Maybe then you'll be grateful.

The US military does not bring aid..aid is a means to bring the US militay into a country..
Just ask the iraqis and the afghans what they think of US military aid! Iraq and the military are referenced in AVATAR

[Shatnerpossum]

Since you hate AVATAR and the environment, why are you here if not to troll?same with your imperial pals



The US military does not bring aid..aid is a means to bring the US militay into a country..
Just ask the iraqis and the afghans what they think of US military aid! Iraq and the military are referenced in AVATAR

If any of us hated avatar, we wouldn't be here.

And apparently you've never seen my military in humanitarian operations. Here's just ONE of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TemL3O9Lk6Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo1EH9dq7sI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu7wsniHO_Q

[HufweMakto]

Now what I'm hearing is that the oil that's been spilling in the Gulf has been discovered to be of a different consistancy than what was previously thought. They're trying to create a plug in the oil pipe so the leak will stop, but from what I've read and heard, it's not going to be easy.

[Imperius Dictatio]

Problem there are three leaks.
There best bet is to continue to try and shut off the main valve.
Failing that they have several options open to them. All of which will take a considerable amount of time.

[applejuice]

Straight from BP: Gulf of Mexico | Deepwater Horzion | Incident (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033571&contentId=7061708)
(Unlike some people think, the super evil, soulless, ultracapitalist demons are acting very quickly. Please let that stereotype for the science fiction or ultra left wing, pseudo-socialists). It is going to be a tough work there, given the size of those things.

[Imperius Dictatio]

Well put.
I've even heard that many BP Emplyee's are undergoing voluntary HazMat training to help in the cleanup.
Of course Brainct will more then likely argue that theres some villiany afoot.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Well - Avatar definitely had a rather blunt environmentalist and anti-corporation/anti capitalism message. But I think many people with a different opinion liked it "anyway". As I am an environmentalist and anti-corporationist, I also liked the message, but also think it was very bluntly put. OTOH there are things like this going on in the world for real - profit oriented corporations against native triebs or environmental rights people.

Anyway - I.D. - for me it does not really matter if BP is responsible for the blowout or not. They took responsability for the resulting spill and they would not do that if they would not think it would be at least mostly true. If the blowout was an accident or caused by bad work is under investigation. And the families of the people who died have started an investigation in that area and I hope they will get clarity for themselves.

But what I most over all criticize is not the blowout itself, but the ignorance of the possibilities to prevent or minimize the resulting catastrophe.
1) BP among other pay billions for lobby work to prevent regulations
2) Regulations were proposed (and declined due to the lobby work) to increase requirements of safety measures to prevent ecological disasters on deep sea drilling. Oil companies instead told people to trust in their own judgements and self imposed (weaker) safety regulations.
3) The stronger regulations are already in place and established in Norway (one of the largest deep sea oil drilling country in the world) and Brazil (!)
4) The regulations require a backup blowout preventer and a remote controlled valve to be able to send an acoustic signal from a ship to the borehole in order to close the valve.
5) A device like that costs less than a million $, which is peanuts for a company dealing in oil
6) Obviously no backup plans have been devised for the case of such a disaster! What they do now (putting a dome on top of the hole to pump away the oil) is experimental. There has not been done any testing of this for very deep sea drilling at all. Normally, emergency procedures should be devised and tested before starting a potentially risky operation.
7) The exploratory drill rig did not do only exploratory work, but also drilled a production well against regular procedures. The reason for this was to save money on bringing in another platform for that drilling work.

And this is, what I blame BP as the planning and financing corporation of the operation for. They took risks that could have been avoidable to increase profit!

[Imperius Dictatio]

They followed all regulations.
The only thing they didnt do was add a second (and optional) failsafe. It wasnt mandatory in the least.

[AuroraGlacialis]

They followed all regulations.
The only thing they didnt do was add a second (and optional) failsafe. It wasnt mandatory in the least.

Yes, they followed regulations they helped creating. It is reckless and dangerous to leave it up to a profit oriented company to voluntarily install a second failsafe. BP can claim all they like to take all safety measures they deem necessary for such an operation - when it comes to money, their perception of necessities changes. This shows exactly why governments need to make stronger regulations and not leave it to the free market and the decisions of corporations to determine what is safe and what is not. Come on - who would run a computer with sensible data on it on a single hard drive with no backup? Banks have 3 or 4 backups, big companies usually have at least 1 or 2, Nuclear power plants have more than 2 backup systems. Why should an oil company not have at least one backup system? Because there is no profit in it and the possible fines or payments from failure multiplied by the risk assessment do not exceed the investments for a secondary system installation. That's why!
Other drilling rigs have these secondary systems for a reason and they are not all socialists, the Norwegians and Brazilians just care more for the environment than for companies profit than the US. But that is no wonder when us buerocrats and politicians are literally sponsored with company money... there come obligations with such financing... But I want to avoid bragging about the US government and a economical-political system that allows too much freedom to corporations again, so for now I stick with blaming BP for claiming to self-impose additional safety regulations to make rigs like this secure and just not doing it.

[Imperius Dictatio]

Bah! The only people who would benefiet from that are the Parasites.
It was the Goverments "Regulations" that brought on the Housing Collapse as well as the Banking Failures.
Anyway. For the last TIME BP DID NOT OWN THE RIG the RIG was leased by Transocean and was Transocean property and furthermore the main failsafe system SHOULD have worked, what makes this even crazier is how the goverment should have been more on top of this.I mean Hells Bells there was a law they passed in 1994 saying that they would maintain TEN! Fire Booms to handle any blowouts off the Coasts. Guess how many the Goverment had? ZERO. They had to buy a Fire Boom from a Company in Illinois and then started to beg other countries to let us use theres. If the goverment had followed through with the law they damn well passed SIXTEEN years ago the oil spill may not have even gotten close to the Coastline. Hell from reports if we had SIX of these booms on hand we could hav cuaght 95% of the oil that was escaping the wreck.

Also I've heard reports that one plan that BP was going to try in an effor to seal off the leaks was halted by the goverment. The government took so long to respond that by the time they did they couldnt put it into use.

All in All I wouldnt trust the goverment to take care of a pet rock. Let alone put more regulations in place.

[AuroraGlacialis]

And it goes on - after yesterday, BP ordered to remove the cap, now leaving the oil flow freely into the ocean once more (and ever more so due to the botched rescue operation), I just read this now: BP Is Pursuing Alaska Drilling Some Call Risky - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/24rig.html) - well that is great, right? Same stupid stuff, breaking more records, this time Alaska. Exxon Valdez still ringing a bell with anyone?

[Shatnerpossum]

Problem there are three leaks.
There best bet is to continue to try and shut off the main valve.
Failing that they have several options open to them. All of which will take a considerable amount of time.

Sorry, I read that as "there are four lights!"

[black_mesa]

Heh, its ****ed up. In all possible ways. And its sad, its frustrating, terrifying. Spill (lame name for it), the way its handled, the way ppl are treated, the way media is treated... Everything is just awfull, and i cant immagine how bad it must feel for milions of ppl living down there, expecialy knowing, that it will get worse, a lot worse (huricane season, posibility of not-closing this leak not for 1 more month, but, well, MUCH longer, then even theoretical danger of vulcano etc etc) and plus this preasure from government or w/e it is.
I realy do wish all the strenght possible for them folks out there, i realy do...

P.S. u might say that i forgot enviroment. No, i didnt, but it sorta dwarfs out against government/BP actions and how many milions of ppl are and will get involved. Imo

[Shatnerpossum]

BTW everyone, caps back on. Is that enough to make you believe BP isn't Beelzebub in corporate form maliciously and maniacally plotting misfortune and mischief against the magnificent and majestic marine life in the gulf of mexico?

[black_mesa]

BTW everyone, caps back on. Is that enough to make you believe BP isn't Beelzebub in corporate form maliciously and maniacally plotting misfortune and mischief against the magnificent and majestic marine life in the gulf of mexico?
No, its not :) And u know, they are still collecting around 25% of what is leaking (ofc thats great and better than nothing, but this isnt the topic). During next weeks max will be ~50% (but it will probly wont cause of storms and huricanes).

When there wont be media blackout, when they wont intimidate locals, when they will be honest with whats going on (u know theyr 1k, 5k, 19k, 35k, 60k, 100k barrels growth?) - i will believe. Also, we all know that wont happen.

[AuroraGlacialis]

BTW everyone, caps back on. Is that enough to make you believe BP isn't Beelzebub in corporate form maliciously and maniacally plotting misfortune and mischief against the magnificent and majestic marine life in the gulf of mexico?
Good news. But yes - the percentage they collect is better than nothing but still marginal. And judging from their old press relesases I don't even trust the percentage numbers.
And no - it does not convince me that BP (or the other petroleum companies) isnt "evil" (though such definitions do not fit corporations - they are not good or evil, they just are and have their own rules based on economy, growth and financial gain - the result of this may be evil though). I never said they like to conspire against nature though, it's just plain greed and my critique goes not against what they are doing now so much as rather against not planning for this in the first place, drilling in risky ways and doing so obvioulsy in other places also (Alaska , see above post)

[AuroraGlacialis]

Some photos from the area: “What have they done to the earth? What have they done to our fair sister?” | TEDxOilSpill (http://tedxoilspill.com/2010/06/25/what-have-they-done-to-the-earth-what-have-they-done-to-our-fair-sister/)
Be sure to tune in to the live streams on Monday when the TEDx conference on the oil spill happens! Great scientists and other people will talk there! TEDxOilSpill (http://tedxoilspill.com)

[Shatnerpossum]

You can't blame a corporation for trying to make maximum profit for minimal cost anymore than you can blame a fox for going after your chickens or a bee for stinging you. If you want to "blame" anyone blame the US government for lacking oversight.

[AuroraGlacialis]

You can't blame a corporation for trying to make maximum profit for minimal cost anymore than you can blame a fox for going after your chickens or a bee for stinging you. If you want to "blame" anyone blame the US government for lacking oversight.

These comparisons completely lack any connection. A fox is not the top predator, corporations are, also if the miss the chicken, the fox will go hungry and not drench the house in blood. A Bee is only stinging in self defense - corporations string out of the need to make profit.
Yes, I blame the government, but not only for missing imposing proper regulations, but mostly because they are influenced by the very corporations they are supposed to look over.

So yes, I blame the corporations - not that it can do much good of course, as I cannot blame a person that would respond to such a blame - a corporation is a non human "legal person" and there is no way for it to feel remorse or to accept blame except in the light of public relations and stock prices. So if it is at least that, maybe putting the blame on them will do some good as they will at least have to spend some money on compensations to keep up their image.

[Tsyal Makto]

You can't blame a corporation for trying to make maximum profit for minimal cost anymore than you can blame a fox for going after your chickens or a bee for stinging you. If you want to "blame" anyone blame the US government for lacking oversight.

Um, there would have been oversight and regulation if corporate lobbyists didn't fight it so much. It's like blaming someone for letting you sleep in even though you told them not to wake you up.

You can't fight government regulation, and then blame the government for not regulating when the organization that would have been regulated does something wrong. Pick a side, stay there, and live with your consequences.

[Zapgun]

They aren't blaming government regulation, we are. This is like complaining that your roommate let the other roomate sleep in after he complained about being woken up early all the time.

[GaiaWarrior]

Seriously, there is more at stake here than who wins the blame game. Lobbyists, the G, Haleburton, Dick Cheney, BP. How about we all just look into a mirror, point an accusatory finger at the image we see, say "It's your fault," and recognize there are still 3 fingers pointing back at us and call it a day? The old addage is true: you want something done, you have to do it yourself.

I am no saint, and I am just as guilty of fixing the barn door after the horses have run off as the next person. But how about this for a tactic: I have long felt lobbyists are the hellhounds preceeding the Apocalypse. When the power rests in the hands of the few, they have to devote more time to keeping it, hence the need to exert influence over the driver's of this crazy train. And on the eighth day, The CEO created lobbyists! Fine. They're here. Now if the Tea Baggers, fronted by Caribou Barbie herself, Sarah Palin, can come out of nowhere and start influencing elections, why can't someone else? And I don't mean politicos. Imagine a grassroots campaign for a new kind of lobbyist... Not one, but millions. And not fronting a political agenda or an economic coup for some greedy, soulless monsterosity like Haleburton. What if an organization of millions (us types) took a first step to making the government of the people, by the people and for the people once again by pouring over every piece of legislation OUR elected officials want to introduce, examine every law OUR elected officals want to pass, question why OUR elected officials are doing what they are doing and if this organization doesn't like it or thinks it needs to change, we (the millions) lobby against it...? Fire with fire. If you point out all the crap being perpatrated in our names by OUR elected officials, I guarantee you more people will get involved. I hate to bring my geek on, but this is an awesome line from 'V for Vendetta:'

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

The French had a great idea a long time ago: they built guillitines. And they used them. They eliminated the problem and started over.

Before anyone gets that itch, I AM NOT ABDICATING ASSINATION, MURDER AND DESTRUCTION!!! But there comes a time when we have to get off our supersized asses, pull our heads out of whatever reality show is on, and get to work! I've been in the army 9 years, and you cannot get anything done on your own, no matter how many communist hordes Rambo takes out solo! It takes a team effort to do everything from basic equipment maintenance, to clearing out a town of Al-Qeda murders.

My brothers and sisters... When humans unite it can be an awesome thing to behold. But we have lost our way. Or had it clouded so we can't find it or each other anymore. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to subscribe to, it doesn't change the fact we have no one to blame but all of us. So, the blame game over, (in a perfect world...) where do we go from here...?

[Shatnerpossum]

I see I shall have to rely on Aesop to deliver my point.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

[GaiaWarrior]

I see I shall have to rely on Aesop to deliver my point.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

I refuse to believe we exist only to destroy. Maybe we should start to teach how to be better than WE are instead of better off than the other guy.

[AuroraGlacialis]

@Gaiawarrior:
Great speech. Indeed, the government should fear the people - oh and it does. Corporations do so too. That is part of why they play the game as they do. They give you reality TV shows, celebrities and (sad to say to) hollywood movies. They give you the feeling you can change something by voting republicans or democrats while in fact both do the same thing in the end. They distract you from problems in society by pointing fingers at foreign lands, single persons or corporations that have done a poo poo or on "evil criminals" that sell drugs. Basically they scare the hell out of you and then provide a solution for that scare - this keeps people occupied. To get enough people up to do something is not easy. Currently, thousands are protesting in Canada agains the G20 meeting there, trying to show their discontent, but the only response is to spend millions on military to protect the politicians - so you see - the ARE scared of the people, sadly the effect is not what would be desireable...


I see I shall have to rely on Aesop to deliver my point.
[...] Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

Just because a saying is old does not mean it is true. This argument - I guess the point you wanted to make is about humans not scorpions - that it is humans nature to be greedy, take from others, be violent and such... it is based on assumptions that are flawed deeply. Yes - humans are capable of all these things, but it is not their nature by default. There are peaceful societies on this world in this time and there have been many in the past. What brings up these traits in humans is the situation and the society they live in. And it takes only a glimpse at what the so called "developed" societies of this world is like to see that this is not the base for a peaceful society.
But even among these societies you can already see differences - The US has a proposterous percentage of their population in prison: U.S. Prison Population Sets Record - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113000912.html) - more than basically all other industrialized nations. In your logic this would mean that is is in the nature of Americans to commit more crimes than Europeans for example. And I think you can agree that this is utter nonsense.

[Shatnerpossum]

My point is that a corporation is a corporation, I was hoping you'd infer that since I phrased it as a response to your anti-corporate sentiments.

But if you want to read it more broadly then fine. Human nature is fundamentally bad across the board. Often societal values assist it, but the base force in any situation is human nature. Nourish the good parts and stifle the bad.

If you want to talk prison population: Too damn bad if its high. I'd rather see criminals behind bars and have people criticize than have them running around and stealing my TV. Sure we have a crime rate. But we also have nearly unfettered speech and expression, which means incitement is part of the media and the popular culture. In the ghettos and the inner city gangs, drugs, murder, and crime of every sort is promoted by the only role models the kids have: thugs.

Its an effect of freedoms and socioeconomic realities. It has nothing "inherent" about it, and you know that.

[Zapgun]

A corporations very reason for existing in the first place is to make money. They exist because by virtue for their very existence they make it easier for their creators to make more money with the help of employees beneath them.

Your asking something to go against its very nature and reason for existing, that IS a lot to ask of it. Would you ask the scorpion to not sting you even though you know if you touch it your going to get stung?

[Shatnerpossum]

Glad to see someone got it.

[Imperius Dictatio]

I dont know how someone can't get it really.
It's simple.

[Zapgun]

Lets think of the corporation as a person, you bring that person in for a specific job, it isnt looking out for the little guy, it isnt helping plant trees, it is a simple job, to make more money. When you ask that man to stop making money for a bit and think of the little guy or to plant trees, he will ask you "I am not here to think of the little guy or plant trees, I am here to make money, if you want me to stop making money then why am I here?".

[AuroraGlacialis]

Back on Topic:
I just read (sadly this is in German only: Telepolis enews: Gas- und Ölförderung: Leckagen sind in Europa Dauerzustand (http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/147928)) that now as the BP is spilling millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, people come aware of what is going on all over the world in that industry. It seems that "Deep Water Horizon" has happened many times before. Several boreholes are open thoughout the world, spilling mostly gas or mud into the water and atmosphere. They all happened by blowouts and they all cannot be stopped by technology. Some of them are going on for 20 or 40 years. some of them should have lead to oil, so maybe there will be oil coming out of them at some point, too. But no cap or funnel will be able to catch these spills, no relief wells are drilled - they are simply clueless what to do and just declare the area around them as no-shipping zones and leave it at that. That is how responsible these corporations are and that is how well governments seem to be able to control them.

On Anti corporationism:

Lets think of the corporation as a person, you bring that person in for a specific job, it isnt looking out for the little guy, it isnt helping plant trees, it is a simple job, to make more money. When you ask that man to stop making money for a bit and think of the little guy or to plant trees, he will ask you "I am not here to think of the little guy or plant trees, I am here to make money, if you want me to stop making money then why am I here?".

But that is the problem, isnt't it? Humans put artificial persons (corporations) into existance with the sole purpose of making money. As a result, all they do is that - no matter what the people in them think of it. And as a result, all other factors are ignored, like environmental impact and social consequences. The great problem is now, that humans gave these virtual persons with that singleminded motivation legal power and similar rights to humans. So what happened is that these "legal persons" gained a lot of power. Some have budgets of small nations.

Of course it is futile to expect from corporations to do anything other than making money, so what remains? Either forcibly control them (which is hard because their power goes into influencing populations and governments by lobbying and media) or find a way to get rid of them. Yes, I am anti-corporation - I am that because I do not want "legal persons" with the single motivation to make money to wield more power than any human on earth.


Human nature is fundamentally bad across the boardFor that I'd like to have proof. It is a general assumption of people living in our society that this is the case, but I fathom that it is the situation and the society that makes it appear so. If you criminalize more and more things, put more and more people into jail, this will not make it better. These are programs and programs do not work - Do you really think by making using alcohol a crime, you could prevent the healthcare costs by it? Or would this rather give way to a black market, increased criminality by definition and people beeing secret alcoholics driving over hte border to get Canadian Whiskey? The US has experience in that area in the past and I cannot understand why they cling to a concept that did not work beack then in the times of alcohol prohibition when it comes to "modern" politics in so many areas.
And locking people up just makes them more criminal. If you solve the problems that made them criminals, you have much more success! It is not human nature that is bad - no one deals drugs or steals TVs out of fun - they do it because they need money, have no job or have become addicts. Solve that instead of "fighting" the people who suffer!

[Zapgun]

Aurora stole the very words from my mouth and plucked the very punctuation from my mind! Here Here! (About the crime that is)

[AuroraGlacialis]

Wow - we should celebrate! :nparty: - zapgun and Aurora agree on something :rotfl:

[Imperius Dictatio]

Anti-Corporate? BAH!
http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/07/10.jpg
FOR THE STATE!

(Of course on your two 'solutions' one of them is Communism while the other is simply wouldnt work making them both foolhardy.)

[AuroraGlacialis]

On topic:
Warning To Gulf Volunteers: Almost Every Cleanup Worker From The 1989 Exxon Valdez Disaster Is Now Dead (http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-every-crew-member-from-the-1989-exxon-valdez-disaster-is-now-dead-2010-6)
Seems like cleaning up the oil disaster may cost literally many more lives than the few immediate deaths during the explosion.
Oh and yeah - this kind of cleanup will definitely work.....not:
BP’s New Cover-Up Revealed | The Public Record (http://pubrecord.org/nation/7923/bps-new-cover-up-revealed/)

@ I.D.:
Yeah sure - dismiss these options as foolhardy out of a whim. Probably bring up leninist USSR again as an example of communism (which is was not!)

It is always more convenient to be conservative and just insist that sticking to what one has is the best way as anything else has not been proven to work.

But don't you see the incredible schizma you have? On the one hand you are all for progress and relying on new technologies to solve all problems and you are willing to bet our future on unproven technologies that are not even close to beeing applicable and on the other side, you think that one should not even consider changing culture or society without absolute proof that it works 100% better than what is going on now?

Why are you taking on two different opinions on change and "progress" when it comes to it beeing technologcal or social ???

[Shatnerpossum]

No matter what BP does, none of you will ever be satisfied. They've sunk billions into the cleanup of a spill their SUBCONTRACTOR caused, but according to public opinion they still like to eat baby and caviar monte cristo sandwiches studded in gold for lunch.

I really wish everyone would stop sitting on lawn chairs yelling "you missed a spot" and instead try going out and volunteering to nuke the baby gay whales for Jesus or whatever bits of activism are seen as especially helpful, excluding pushing along the bandwagon of BP-hating. Do something at least marginally productive.

And an FYI here: Communism can only exist in political theory. Different kinds of socialism can, but any kind besides social democracy can become very negative.

[AuroraGlacialis]

No matter what BP does, none of you will ever be satisfied.

Did I mention BP especially? I dont think so. BP is just the one company responsible for this one incident. What I criticize is not one corporation. I dont care if it is called BP or EXXON or SHELL - its all the same to me - they all act the same too. (Oh and of course this expands to corporations outside the oil business, too)

And yes - no matter what they do now, I will not be satisfied. This is because it is what they should have done before, that I criticize on this special incident. And they show little remorse in that they would start rethinking in future projects. They act like all big companies do - if there is a problem, deal with the consequences (clean up beaches, spray dispersants, give people who suffered from a chemical accident some money or pay some rudimentary medical bills) but god forbid to take better precautions or invest money to prevent future catastrophies! It's like they are playing poker - the stakes are high and if one looses one has to pay off, but if one wins, it was worth the risk and in any case one would take the same risk again.


And an FYI here: Communism can only exist in political theory. Different kinds of socialism can, but any kind besides social democracy can become very negative.
How do you know it if it was never tested? Dont you think the people living in a monarchy in the 19th century would have thought for big parts that the idea to let the peasants and workers make decisions concerning the nation would be utterly ridicolous? They don't know anything on politics, do they? Democracy - what a stupid idea. And still - it works (sort of) and people of our times cling to it. Why would it be so difficult to imagine that there could be other systems that can work? Maybe not the Communism described in 150 year old scriptures and certainly not the totalitarian regine giving itself the name communism that ruled in the USSR and China, but just imagine that there can actually be something beyond the current politics. Humans of this culture are always so stubborn in that the way they think what they do right now is the best and only way to do things. This is true for medieval christians, Conquistadores past 1492, Missionaries in the imperial colonies, Kings, Monarchs and Rulers of Europe in History - up to the way of living in the US - basically this whole culture always thinks that the way things are done is the ultimate best way to do things - and yet, they have been proven wrong so many times with different ways turning out to be "better" - once the mindset of the people was set to them.

To not see beyond what is now in social terms is conservative, still even people who like to be progressive on the technological aspects of this culture deny that social progression is possible! Why is that?!?

[Shatnerpossum]

Communism is not feasible. Thats all I said, and you started going on about monarchies.

Yes, Communism was tested. It never grew past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I dislike the use of "progressive" toward politics or social issues because it inherently insults other opinions by implying they are regressive or stagnant, and it advances a particular agenda as being "the way of the future" and somehow better. Its the ultimate arrogance in the political world.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Communism is not feasible. Thats all I said, and you started going on about monarchies.
Yes, Communism was tested. It never grew past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I went on about monarchies to show, that no political system can be dismissed on theoretical accounts only. It may sound ridicolous at first but may prove to work. On Communism as an example (one that I do not even directly support on all accounts at least not in the way it often is thought of) I do not see where it was tested ever. The self proclaimed communist countries have been dictatorships or totalitarian states and have nothing to do with the original idea of communism.
Something similar is true with Democracy though - what most people think of Democracy these days is a representative Parliamentarism and it also does not really fulfil the ideals of a democratic government.


I dislike the use of "progressive" toward politics or social issues because it inherently insults other opinions by implying they are regressive or stagnant, and it advances a particular agenda as being "the way of the future" and somehow better. Its the ultimate arrogance in the political world.
I used the word "progressive" intentionally as this is what people think that has to be done. In a way it is true of course, as all change is in a way a progression. What can come from it may be the same that has been there before, but people would not call this a regression as unless you go back in time, there is no real regression - what has been learned will always influence new systems.

[Shatnerpossum]

In Marxist theory, there is a stage between the revolution and the classless communist society, that is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The weakness of communism is that you can never surpass that stage because of human nature in general, and its effects on leaders.

Yet "progressive" does have a certain connotation and exclusivity in ideology.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Yes, you are right, Marxist theory is like that and maybe it is indeed not working, which does not mean, that the proposed goal, a classless society is beyond reach. Maybe the way to it as perceived by Marx many many decades ago is not working. In fact, I doubt that it is working that way - especially years after the development of that path. It will probably no longer work the same way people no longer think we'll have nuclear reacors in our cars anytime soon - and that vision is only half as old as Marxist theory. Again - the goal of it remains something, I would call communism and that has not been reached. The reasons for that I dont know - I am no sociologist. Maybe it even was the cold war or maybe it was just not the right time for it. Some believe that the communist revolution was forced and that in the original theory it was stated that before a revolution, capitalism has to reach a high point and then a collapse and only then it would be the time to communism to evolve - only if people have realized, that capitalism is not working. If you rush things, it wont work. Just as you cannot tell a person in 1950 that driving a car with a low mileage is a bad thing besides beeing expensive and that a hybrid car is better because it saves the environment - the experience and knowledge is just not there yet.

[Shatnerpossum]

People fail to understand that communism also entails societal change, capitalism is an economic system only.

And to be honest here, only two or three nations have free market economies. The vast majority are mixed-market.

[Zapgun]

Societal change is in my opinion the largest obstacle to a true communist society, and goes against human nature, it will never work with humans as we are today.

[Tsyal Makto]

If we can get off the ol' communism vs socialism vs capitalism debate for a minute...

White House suspends First Amendment rights in coverage of oil spill damage (http://www.examiner.com/x-34929-Manhattan-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d3-White-House-suspends-First-Amendment-rights-in-covering-damage-from-oil-spill)

Well looks like another one of our rights just went down the sh*tter. Reminds me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=E9ff9EVNHJU&feature=related).

[Shatnerpossum]

You do realize that this comes from the same site running this: BP Gulf oil spill threatens whales, dolphins: ?ET ambassadors? vital to Earth?s light-energy grid (http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m7d5-BP-Gulf-oil-spill-threatens-whales-dolphins-ET-ambassadors-vital-to-Earths-lightenergy-grid)

I mean really, check your damn sources. I'm sick of people online running around over phoney-baloney hogwash screaming about the end being near.

[Tsyal Makto]

CNN, legitimate enough for ya? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM&feature=player_embedded)

Don't get your panties in a bunch...

[Zapgun]

I will get them in a bunch however I please, especially when you are running around posting that stuff and trying to pass it off as evidence, dont post something unless you have actually read the site its on.

And no, I have always felt CNN was Anti-Government and therefore biassed.

And on that note, the Government can do this, why?

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While you may think this means it can show oil spill pictures you are right, but now it simply cannot get any new ones. The government simply has restricted the presses access to new material


Edit the Third: The website is also biased, or the article has drawn those that are, most of the comments are critical of Obama, 'tyrannical rule'? really?

[AuroraGlacialis]

And no, I have always felt CNN was Anti-Government and therefore biassed.

While you may think this means it can show oil spill pictures you are right, but now it simply cannot get any new ones. The government simply has restricted the presses access to new material

I have to admit, that one should definitely look at a site before quoting and better look for more reliable sites before putting it here in the crossfire. CNN for me is a reliable source. If you say it is not, then show me one that truely is - every media has a bias. Maybe better look for news from other countries (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/oelkatastrophe-im-golf-von-mexiko-betreten-verboten-1.957864) then, I think they are probably the least biased and least censored. And you are not really seriously defending the restriction of press to get new material they need for a proper publication on what is going on!?!


People fail to understand that communism also entails societal change, capitalism is an economic system only.
What is behind capitalism is also a social system. So much should be clear - Capitalism is directly connected with hierarchies, social stratification and strong competition between participants. You are just so used to it, that you see these things as merely general facts, but it is these social structures that are connected to capitalism and would have to go if a different system, for example a communism, should ever develop.


Societal change is in my opinion the largest obstacle to a true communist society, and goes against human nature, it will never work with humans as we are today.
So here you got it right - social change has to happen, not merely economic. But the idea that social change or communism would go against human nature is not something I can accept. It may be against the nature of humans living in this framework of society, in this culture as most people in it have learned to accept that certain aspects of life are universal. But the confusion here is between what is inherent to beeing human and what is inherent to beeing a human in this society. I hate it if people regard humans as flawed beeings, incapable of beeing peaceful or social without any kind of strong rule, hard punishments or management. These things are inherent to the society we live in for the past millenia. But they are not inherent to humans in general. Humans are capable of so much more and in such a bigger diversity. To stick to a rather limited perspective of what we have learned within this society will of course prevent many from wanting or even admitting the possibility of a social change. This does not mean that it is not possible, the barrier is however in the mind of the people and unless this can be lifted, change will not happen. If no one believes it can work, it will not work of course.
This is I think why in theories on socialism there is the idea, that before a path to in this case communism can be entered, capitalism has to prove that it is not a stable and working system. Things like financial crisis get people to question this already and if such events repeat, I can imagine that people might actually start to rethink their belief in this system. At this point of course, matters are difficult as people then can be open to many ideas. In 1933 Germany, it took a very wrong way for example. So that is why I think one should keep working on ideas how to make positive social change happen...

[Zapgun]

True, but people are clever. The biggest meanest bullies of ancient history showed this, Ceaser, Alexander, Atilla. Unless you have a way of enforcing the communist ideals on society as fairly as possible to keep one man getting all his friends together and providing insurance protection to Joe the baker, it will eventually fall apart.

To be perfectly honest, I would love to see a real communist society work on the global level, if it could be done I would bow down to you.

[Shatnerpossum]

CNN, legitimate enough for ya? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM&feature=player_embedded)

Don't get your panties in a bunch...

So, requiring permission to get within 65 feet of a working vessel or crew is somehow an infringement on freedom of the press? The Admiral even said that safety and security would be the exceptions. Well, here they are. Now whose panties are in a bunch?




What is behind capitalism is also a social system. So much should be clear - Capitalism is directly connected with hierarchies, social stratification and strong competition between participants. You are just so used to it, that you see these things as merely general facts, but it is these social structures that are connected to capitalism and would have to go if a different system, for example a communism, should ever develop.



Thats human nature. As if Lenin's revolution didn't have hierarchies? Every organization has someone at the top and someone at the bottom. And even in anarchy, there's a hierarchy based off of strength. Its human nature, not economics.

And as I said, we have mixed-market economies and not free-market capitalism.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Unless you have a way of enforcing the communist ideals on society as fairly as possible to keep one man getting all his friends together...

Enforcing is not working. This is why it failed last time - people thought, things need to be enforced. I'd rather think self regulatory mechanisms provide a much better control. As long as large amounts of property and the ability to excert power on others are possible, it may indeed be hard, that is why communists want to dimish these possibilities, I believe. In a society built differently, a person who starts to collect power and property would be regarded as a negative and people would not go with him on that. This may sound unbelievable for people from this culture as we have been trained to think that it is human nature to fight, to be greedy and to compete forever for power. Examples to the contrary are here:

Peaceful Societies (http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/)


So, requiring permission to get within 65 feet of a working vessel or crew is somehow an infringement on freedom of the press?

It is if you cannot ask the people working there for permission and if that regulation also includes areas that are not worked on like booms (sp?) and therelike.
I admit, that 65 feet will probably not be a big problem for modern cameras to zoom in, but taking samples is made impossible by this.


Thats human nature. As if Lenin's revolution didn't have hierarchies? Every organization has someone at the top and someone at the bottom. And even in anarchy, there's a hierarchy based off of strength.

Lenin! I keep telling that this was not communism and not even starting on the right path! And no - there are forms of organization that can do without a hierarchy or at least without a strong and solid hierarchy. The link above shows some examples.

The reason for why no mass societies exist at present that have such a structure is an interesting question to ponder, as this is what some directions of communism or anarchism try to establish. However the fact that it works in small scale communities proves enough to say that it is not human nature. Maybe it is the nature of humans in this culture or maybe it is a result of mass society (which is again in a way a result of the culture), but it should inspire people to think of ways how to realize such concepts in the future.

A society that wants to keep such a system would make it part of themselves. As much as in our society competition is a prime directive, in a different culture cooperation may be the same. People would regard competitive behaviour or the collection of wealth and power as disrespectful or harmful to society just as this society shuns people who do not work enough or are poor. In that way, such a culture could indeed keep itself alive and direct members towards "acceptable behaviour".

But I agree that the problem is, that such a cultural shift would be immense and I am not sure if this can be reached by reforms or a succession of little changes. Such a change would probably realizing and dismantling some of the basic assumptions of this culture and this is not an easy task. To be honest, I do not know how to make it happen, but I think it is needed to make human life once again worthwile.

[Zapgun]

Then how do people decide what to do if everyone is the same?

[Shatnerpossum]

It is if you cannot ask the people working there for permission and if that regulation also includes areas that are not worked on like booms (sp?) and therelike.
I admit, that 65 feet will probably not be a big problem for modern cameras to zoom in, but taking samples is made impossible by this.



Lenin! I keep telling that this was not communism and not even starting on the right path! And no - there are forms of organization that can do without a hierarchy or at least without a strong and solid hierarchy. The link above shows some examples.


1. You have to ask the Coast Guard for permission as they are the ones enforcing safety on the water. They don't tell CNN how to spin raw data or mispronounce things (or whatever else they do), so I would find it hilarious for the media to claim they know maritime safety better than the USCG.

2. Yes, that was communism. Now mind you, it was the interim phase, but it was still part of communist progression, which is a necessary stage if you want to implement any system.

3. Every society, organization, and gathering of more than one person (arguably two or more) has a hierarchy. Thats nature.

[AuroraGlacialis]

2. Yes, that was communism. Now mind you, it was the interim phase, but it was still part of communist progression, which is a necessary stage if you want to implement any system.

3. Every society, organization, and gathering of more than one person (arguably two or more) has a hierarchy. Thats nature.

2. You confuse the proposed theoretical (marxist) progression towards communism with communism itself. Just because the way that was tried in the USSR was the wrong one (and I reckon it was flawed from the beginning even under marxist viewpoints as Russia didn't see the rise and blossom and subsequent fall of capitalism postulated to be the foundation for a subsequent communist revolution) does not invalidate the goal.

3. I guess this turns into a diametral oppositional debate here - You believe it is human nature to build a hierarchy that is based on power, stregth or in this civilization money and wealth. But there is little proof of such a statement - but there is evidence that it is not so if you look OUTSIDE this culture. I know this is a hard thing to do, as this culture managed to expand to encompas almost every bit of this planet but there are still other cultures left and there are those who have a concept of wealth, power and resulting hierarchies, but there are also those who do not have it. I am not argueing that every other culture does not have it - I am argueing, that the cultural diversity shows, that there are countless possibilities in that area of discussion and that this shows, that in this aspect, one cannot claim that it is human nature but rather a human possibility.
What is the difference between those cultures that have hierarchies, power, wealth and those that do not. There is not one common difference but the difference in culture itself. As a conclusion, this is the defining difference that promotes or neglects the rise of hierarchies and social stratification.

I have found after some search a video on this that basically tells the same ideas I have been trying to describe here (I was fascinated by the identity between my arguments and the ones made in the video and obvioulsy by some authors). Maybe it is stated there in better words and without the language barrier that I need to overcome in writing this. Of course it cannot be regarded as a main source I would base my arguments on, but that is not my intention in posting it - my intention is, that the video puts the arguments I already made in different words. Here ist is: YouTube - greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCF0aQn7mHs) - it focuses mainly on greed, but the same is intertwined with hierarchy, power and the other things I keep mentioning.

[Zapgun]

Well considering that such hierarchies arose naturally in tribal societies, and have been with us since the dawn of history, and that any attempt to subvert these hierarchies (Communism) have failed, yes I would say that these hierarchies are a natural organization of our societies.

Even if those small societies do not have concepts of wealth, power, or hierarchies, there are still people to whom they defer before making decisions, and individuals who they hold with higher respect then others. This is how hierarchies arise, people look at this able bodied person, look how able he is, he listens to joe the hunter, we should listen to joe the hunter too and be as able as he is. That is how a hierarchi naturally arises in human culture.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Well considering that such hierarchies arose naturally in tribal societies, and have been with us since the dawn of history[...] I would say that these hierarchies are a natural organization of our societies.

Well you kind of said it there - it has been with us (with the people living in the so called modern societies which basically all originated from a single society or culture) since the "dawn of history". Isn't that interesting, that the dawn of history, which is equal to the beginning of this culture (written history goes back only until then) is the point in time you mentioned as the point at which hierarchies are with us. Of course you implied by this not that it started there but that it was already in place at that time, but is that so? Or did it start there?
I think, that there have been societies with hierarchical structures before but also others existed. The reason why it is predominant in the current culture is, that it was one (but not the only) requirement to form a culture that is based on expansionism and conquest - which ultimately lead to this culture beeing the dominant one on this world.
So just because the record of hierarchical structures go back in our culture to its very beginning does not say anything about other cultures or the hundreds of thousands year before, right?


Even if those small societies do not have concepts of wealth, power, or hierarchies, there are still people to whom they defer before making decisions, and individuals who they hold with higher respect then others. This is how hierarchies arise, people look at this able bodied person, look how able he is, he listens to joe the hunter, we should listen to joe the hunter too and be as able as he is. That is how a hierarchi naturally arises in human culture.
Why would a hierarchy arise from this? If Joe is a good hunter and I respect his decisions then I will ask him of course. Maybe with time I become a good hunter too and am asked. If I need information on cooking I may ask Jane and if it comes to medical plants I ask Tanny - Knowledge that is shared freely and distribution of knowledge over all members of a community cannot give raise to hierarchy. Only if a person keeps something (knowledge, food, religious insights) to himself, offering it only for a price or a trade - that is when hierarchies can arise, as then these things turn into power. In a society that does not respect people who do such things (charge something for services or knowledge), such a person would loose the respect and with that all power he started to dream of. This is why I argue that it is society or culture that control if there is a hierarchy building up or not - it is not something that comes naturally under any circumstance. Again - I do not say that the presence or the absence of hierarchical thinking is human nature - both possibilities exist in human nature and it is a product of society that promotes one or another.
My problem is, that one culture and all its child societies and subcultures dominate this world and there are few alternatives left - and this dominant culture placed hierarchical thinking and competition at the very base of its foundation, at the "dawn of its history".
If it would be human nature, we might all be comfortable with it, but as most are not, I would say that if the people who do not like social stratification and all that comes with hierarchical thinking - if these people want change, they have to go to the very roots of this culture and question basically everything that has happened since then under the light of these basic assumptions/the pillars of this civilization.

[Shatnerpossum]

2. You confuse the proposed theoretical (marxist) progression towards communism with communism itself. Just because the way that was tried in the USSR was the wrong one (and I reckon it was flawed from the beginning even under marxist viewpoints as Russia didn't see the rise and blossom and subsequent fall of capitalism postulated to be the foundation for a subsequent communist revolution) does not invalidate the goal.

3. I guess this turns into a diametral oppositional debate here - You believe it is human nature to build a hierarchy that is based on power, stregth or in this civilization money and wealth. But there is little proof of such a statement - but there is evidence that it is not so if you look OUTSIDE this culture. I know this is a hard thing to do, as this culture managed to expand to encompas almost every bit of this planet but there are still other cultures left and there are those who have a concept of wealth, power and resulting hierarchies, but there are also those who do not have it. I am not argueing that every other culture does not have it - I am argueing, that the cultural diversity shows, that there are countless possibilities in that area of discussion and that this shows, that in this aspect, one cannot claim that it is human nature but rather a human possibility.
What is the difference between those cultures that have hierarchies, power, wealth and those that do not. There is not one common difference but the difference in culture itself. As a conclusion, this is the defining difference that promotes or neglects the rise of hierarchies and social stratification.

I have found after some search a video on this that basically tells the same ideas I have been trying to describe here (I was fascinated by the identity between my arguments and the ones made in the video and obvioulsy by some authors). Maybe it is stated there in better words and without the language barrier that I need to overcome in writing this. Of course it cannot be regarded as a main source I would base my arguments on, but that is not my intention in posting it - my intention is, that the video puts the arguments I already made in different words. Here ist is: YouTube - greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCF0aQn7mHs) - it focuses mainly on greed, but the same is intertwined with hierarchy, power and the other things I keep mentioning.

2. It is necessary to have an interim step to change any system. And thats where it goes wrong. Therefore you cannot make it work.

3. Its not a cultural issue. Its inherent to any society, society being groups of people. Undiscovered tribes in New Guinea still have it.

[Zapgun]

My point being that a tribe will need direction, you have a suitably capable indiviudal provide that direction, this is especially important when dealing with other tribes, and issues that would arise from such interaction, such as hunting ground disputes, accidents, and trade and exchange.

A true anarchy would be: ooblon tribe from down south with their violent ways has come north and threatens your tribe, Joe the hunter, Tanny the medicinewoman, and tammy the weaver all go off and do their own thing to try and deal with the Ooblon tribe, each one fails, however if Joe the Hunter confronts them, Tanny the medicine woman heals him, and tTammy the weaver makes armor for him, then the tribe stands a chance of stopping the Ooblon tribe.

Even in animals there is hierarchy and stratification, the muscles listen to the neurons, they do not and cannot go do their own thing, not all organs are the same.

[AuroraGlacialis]

ON TOPIC:
Gulf Awash In 27,000 Abandoned Oil And Gas Wells (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/gulf-abandoned-oil-wells-gas_n_637315.html)
A recent report stated the state of several tens of thousands(!) of abandoned oil wells in the gulf that may pose a threat in the future. These wells are not dry as a bone, they still contain massive amounts of oil and gas, often not economically exploitable. They are plugged with cement, but it is clear, that cement as well as the metal pipes in the well will deteriorate with time. It will be the burden of our children to deal with all these wells, each of them basically a timbomb of small or medium sized oil spills in the future.
We have perforated the ocean floor and the bucket now has many patched holes that eventually all could fail. Great inheritance of technology for our kids and kids kids!

@Shatner:
You are simply refuting my arguments without anything to go with it. This will go nowhere. I wrote, that only because one interim step failed it does not mean that there are no others and only because some tribes have hierarchies does not mean that all have it (in fact there is proof to the contraty). My arguments are based on diversity - the existence of cultural diversity as well as political diversity is precious in the same way as biodiversity as it shows what is possible and sometimes one species/culture/society will come up with a solution for others. Eradicating any kind of diversity is self destruction!


My point being that a tribe will need direction[...]
A true anarchy would be: ooblon tribe from down south with their violent ways has come north and threatens your tribe, Joe the hunter, Tanny the medicinewoman, and tammy the weaver all go off and do their own thing to try and deal with the Ooblon tribe, each one fails, however if Joe the Hunter confronts them, Tanny the medicine woman heals him, and tTammy the weaver makes armor for him, then the tribe stands a chance of stopping the Ooblon tribe.
That concept of anarchy is one very centered on the vision of it from this culture. Anarchism means the absence of a repressive system that excerts power. In your example, if a situation arises, the right people will step up and do what is needed. If a person is needed to trade or be a diplomat with the neighbors, then the most capable person in the tribe will do it. Everyone of course know who that is since they know each other for a long time. But that person does not have any power over the others by that, so it is not a hierarchy or government. A leader whose directions are not followed is not much of a leader, but this would happen in a society that puts someone in charge indefinitely. In this culture, leadership often does not stem from the agreement of all the people but is excerted by force. Even if people vote, they vote on the people who can then enforce these opinions on others or even on themselves if they change their mind.

And also in your example of a fight - why would the other people in the tribe not help one of them to defend them? What could possibly bring them to fight for their own if they know that their abilities are in a different field? And why on Earth would you need a leader to tell them to do so? I argue that humans have a certain degree of sanity, although in this culture it may not look that way anymore. People know the basic laws and their abilities and the abilities of others and act accordingly even without a leader. Maybe in some cases you need an organizer or a mediator - but that is not a hierarchy as long as this person is not given the power to rule over others but rather serves the others. And this concept is one that actually people strive for, they want democracy or communism as a way of the rulers beeing the servants of the people. Quite obvioulsy this does not work out well and I reckon it is because the whole principle of people ruling over others or beeing servants to others is flawed. Even more so are the mothods to convey this in the currently established political systems. There is an interesting concept called liquid democracy that I see may have some future if one is to stick with something close to the political systems we have now.

[AuroraGlacialis]

UPDATE: Another one bites the dust. According to this TV news report: Tug vessel hits abandoned gas well in Barataria Waterway | wwltv.com | WWL Home Page (http://www.wwltv.com/home/Wellhead-hit-leaking-oil-near-Bayou-St-Denis-99313024.html) , there are thousands of capped abandoned oil and gas wells in the gulf of mexico (and probably in many other places). Many of them belonging to companies that no longer exists, some have lights, others dont. So this week, a ship collided with one of them, opening the well, so now a 100 ft high fountain of residual gas and oil is spewing out of the well into the gulf.

Now this time, they are lucky and have te equipment from BP at hand to close it, but imagine this - several thousands of these buggers exist. What if.... what if no one maintains them anymore as the companies who own them go out of business, what if the equipment from BP is not available, what if they simply decay over time to a status that is not fixable with cement and a top hat. What if that happens roughly at the same time (within a few years) - who can fix them all. What if... nobody ever thought of the future of these timebombs...

[Imperius Dictatio]

Even animals create and follow hierarchies. Wolf packs gather around an Alpha Male and Female with the remainder of the pack falling below this stratosphere.
Dogs follow a similar principle when you get more then two dogs living together,but with humans as being a de-facto Alpha. Apes fall into Hierarchal structures as well were the dominant male exerts control over a group. The system is present within the animal kingdom and throughout human history and probably Pre-History as well.

There is nothing wrong with Hierarchy. Hell I think a Hierarchal society is in terms of survival, organization and prosperity greater than any fictional Non-Hierarchal society.

[Tsyal Makto]

Yeah! But just keep yer gummint away from my money 'n guns!

[cargo]

That concept of anarchy is one very centered on the vision of it from this culture…In this culture…in this culture
Can you explain what culture you are talking about.




since the "dawn of history". Isn't that interesting, that the dawn of history, which is equal to the beginning of this culture (written history goes back only until then) is the point in time you mentioned as the point at which hierarchies are with us. Of course you implied by this not that it started there but that it was already in place at that time, but is that so? Or did it start there?

I think, that there have been societies with hierarchical structures before but also others existed. The reason why it is predominant in the current culture is, that it was one (but not the only) requirement to form a culture that is based on expansionism and conquest - which ultimately lead to this culture beeing the dominant one on this world.
So just because the record of hierarchical structures go back in our culture to its very beginning does not say anything about other cultures or the hundreds of thousands year before, right?


You and everyone else seem to be forgetting a social creature that is older then humanity it’s self. Ants or social insects they have a complex hierarchy made up of queens, workers, and even solders. Theses insect’s societies don’t seem to be that different from human society as a madder of fact it seems blur the differences of humanity and animals. Also I just wanted to say that there are different forms of hierarchy and it doesn’t always mean they are evil.

[Imperius Dictatio]

Yeah! But just keep yer gummint away from my money 'n guns!

We don't all sound like that.

[josie20]

We don't all sound like that.
9941 end every sentence with this

[Tsyal Makto]

Seriously, though, I find it laughable how conservatives/right wingers/republicans will admit that a government/hierarchy is necessary for a society to function, but if you mention anything involving money/taxation and laws/regulations (such as something as dangerous as... I don't know? Guns! :nwink:) - two very important things for a functioning society - to a room full of them, you can basically feel every sphincter in the room clench up.

Or the ones who s*** a brick over the national debt, but will s*** a bigger brick over the idea of cutting the defense budget.

[Aihwa]

The issue I find is that the larger the group, he less efficiently it runs.

Having one overseer to 2000 workers is going to result in way more waste than 10 overseer's to 100 workers each, overseen by one head honcho.

[Imperius Dictatio]

9941 end every sentence with this

Sarcasm.
Learn it.


Seriously, though, I find it laughable how conservatives/right wingers/republicans will admit that a government/hierarchy is necessary for a society to function, but if you mention anything involving money/taxation and laws/regulations (such as something as dangerous as... I don't know? Guns! :nwink:) - two very important things for a functioning society - to a room full of them, you can basically feel every sphincter in the room clench up.

Or the ones who s*** a brick over the national debt, but will s*** a bigger brick over the idea of cutting the defense budget.

Go read some John Locke.
His views make it very clear that while you need goverment.
Too much goverment can be a problem.
Also social security,medicare and medicaid (All of them bankrupt or getting pretty close to it.) are head and above what we spend on the military.

[Tsyal Makto]

Go read some John Locke.
His views make it very clear that while you need goverment.
Too much goverment can be a problem.

He also said that a country should have a balance in trade, and the US has failed miserably at that.



Also social security,medicare and medicaid (All of them bankrupt or getting pretty close to it.) are head and above what we spend on the military.

Because the US is a service economy now, and a country as large as the US cannot sustain itself on low-paying service industry alone, while trying to forge cheap production overseas (and, in a way, through use of illegals, cheap labor domestically). You can't burn the candle on both ends. How do you expect the economy to grow when nobody can afford anything? When most of people's paycheck(s) goes to mortgages and bills? Oh, and don't try that "trickle down" crap, that ship sailed a long time ago. Most corporations that the trickle down theory would apply to simply reinvest their money overseas. Most of America never sees a drop of it.

We've given the free market a chance, and it failed. All it did was redirect the flow of money away from the US, towards foreign countries, or the pockets of the top 2%. The free market in the real world isn't like Ayn Rand's conservative masturbatory fantasy, this is how the free market works in the real world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiqqYoIAGq8)

Plus, we can't afford this war anymore. War is only profitable in the first 5 years of combat through the increased production of war materials (but that doesn't really work in the first place with a military like that in America, where it is already combat-ready, and no increase in production is necessary). After that the cost of operating the equipment/deploying soldiers puts a heavy burden on a country's budget.

[Imperius Dictatio]

He also said that a country should have a balance in trade, and the US has failed miserably at that.



Because the US is a service economy now, and a country as large as the US cannot sustain itself on low-paying service industry alone, while trying to forge cheap production overseas (and, in a way, through use of illegals, cheap labor domestically). You can't burn the candle on both ends. How do you expect the economy to grow when nobody can afford anything? When most of people's paycheck(s) goes to mortgages and bills? Oh, and don't try that "trickle down" crap, that ship sailed a long time ago. Most corporations that the trickle down theory would apply to simply reinvest their money overseas. Most of America never sees a drop of it.

We've given the free market a chance, and it failed. All it did was redirect the flow of money away from the US, towards foreign countries, or the pockets of the top 2%. The free market in the real world isn't like Ayn Rand's conservative masturbatory fantasy, this is how the free market works in the real world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiqqYoIAGq8)

Plus, we can't afford this war anymore. War is only profitable in the first 5 years of combat through the increased production of war materials (but that doesn't really work in the first place with a military like that in America, where it is already combat-ready, and no increase in production is necessary). After that the cost of operating the equipment/deploying soldiers puts a heavy burden on a country's budget.

1. I agree that we've slipped from being heavy on Exports.
That is indeed a problem.

2. How could we have given the Free Market a chance when we have a goverment who has continually screwed the pooch? This whole banking crises STARTED becuase the goverment got involved. Telling the Banks to give loans to people who couldnt pay or who were in danger of not being able to pay.
The U.S. economy is far to stifling and controlling to be considered a real Free Market.
Hells Bells you dont have to look any further then the law the goverment passed making Health Insurance Companies unable to sell across State Lines!

How is Rand conservative? She was pretty socially liberal. (While Fiscally Conservative I will give you that.)

Problem with that is America has taken upon itself to be the Worlds Policeman. You cant just start making massive cuts to military spending and expect things to stay on working order.
Now do I think the budget could and should be trimmed back? Of course I do! But at the same time I think they're are a lot of other bloated and bankrupt (And in some cases shouldnt even exist!) programs and agencies that either need to be axed or scaled back was well.
It also just so happens that while I think the U.S. Military should have a decrease in funding. I would only see a 10% reduction in five years total as well as focusing fundings strictly stuff thats possible or needed.

[josie20]

Sarcasm.
Learn it.

Right back at ya.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Even animals create and follow hierarchies. Wolf packs gather around an Alpha Male and Female. Apes fall into Hierarchal structures as well were the dominant male exerts control over a group. The system is present within the animal kingdom and throughout human history and probably Pre-History as well.

For once, Humans are not dogs and are just one kind of apes, if you want to take that comparison and not all Apes form such structures.
Also, just because the system is present in animals does not prove anything as not all animals have that structure and there is little evidence that the majority of pre history humans have followed such a strong structure (usually identifyable by different health and nutrition state of individuals that belong to one group, e.g. one burial site).
Finally even if such small scale hierarchical systems do exist naturally also in humans as lets say in dogs or Apes - this is still very much different from what we see in this world now. An alpha has control over a band, a pack, a small group of individuals. There are few mammals that have really large groups and none that I know of that form massive hierarchical state-like social structures (with various degrees of social status and power over others).



Can you explain what culture you are talking about.
Sure. The culture I am talking about is the one we live in as well as >99% of all humans have come to live in. It is the culture that originated in the near and far east and that based its spreading on growth fueled by the invention of exploitation of resources - basically by the declaration of nature as a resource. This culture regarded the land as property and required the work intensive agricultural strategies developed at that time and the continued overdepletion of other resources like wood and later metal to maintain its existence. It spread from there throughout the world, reaching the Americas in the 1492. So basically it is "western culture" but also "eastern culture" and the cultures that stem from it.


You and everyone else seem to be forgetting a social creature that is older then humanity it’s self. Ants or social insects they have a complex hierarchy made up of queens, workers, and even solders. Theses insect’s societies don’t seem to be that different from human society as a madder of fact it seems blur the differences of humanity and animals. Also I just wanted to say that there are different forms of hierarchy and it doesn’t always mean they are evil.
No, I never forget these insects, but honestly, they share less with us than birds, whales or lions. For them it may work, but humans are not ants. I think there is no need to blur the "line" between humans and animals as humans ARE animals, they are socual animals and they evolved for life in small groups, maybe with smallscale hierarchy, maybe without that - but they did not evolve in largescale hierarchy and evidently humans are not really doing well in such situations, as one can see at numerous examples in human history (or rather the history of this culture that developed such a structure very soon). People talk about revolution and plan uprisings or wars from the beginning of this culture - something that is much less prominent in the few remaining native cultures.

On free market economy as a system for global economy - the adaption of this system is based on the theoretical assumption that it really works on that scale. It makes assumptions like the "homo oeconomicus", the economically rationally thinking human that are far from proven. Indeed, it looks a lot more like these assumptions are wrong, as humans decide for example much more on impulse in some financial aspects than on rational thinking. And even more so it becomes evident that the system is not working well, as can be seen by the instability of the economic system especially in countries that have less restrictions (The US was hit harder by the 2009 crisis than France or Germany for example).

[cargo]

Sure. The culture I am talking about is the one we live in as well as >99% of all humans have come to live in. It is the culture that originated in the near and far east and that based its spreading on growth fueled by the invention of exploitation of resources - basically by the declaration of nature as a resource. This culture regarded the land as property and required the work intensive agricultural strategies developed at that time and the continued overdepletion of other resources like wood and later metal to maintain its existence. It spread from there throughout the world, reaching the Americas in the 1492. So basically it is "western culture" but also "eastern culture" and the cultures that stem from it.

First I would not say that 99 percent of humanity is under rule of a culture, second I wouldn’t call it culture but rather a great big business strategy. after all businesses tend to move from one fuel sources to another without looking at better ones that could benefit everyone.

The culture you should be getting upset about is the modern culture of laziness. After all I am seeing a lot of people today that would rather take drugs, do nothing, and let other people make their decisions.

Also could you explain were you received this idea of one culture ruling the earth?




No, I never forget these insects, but honestly, they share less with us than birds, whales or lions. For them it may work, but humans are not ants. I think there is no need to blur the "line" between humans and animals as humans ARE animals, they are socual animals and they evolved for life in small groups, maybe with smallscale hierarchy, maybe without that - but they did not evolve in largescale hierarchy and evidently humans are not really doing well in such situations, as one can see at numerous examples in human history (or rather the history of this culture that developed such a structure very soon). People talk about revolution and plan uprisings or wars from the beginning of this culture - something that is much less prominent in the few remaining native cultures.

We share much more then you think social structures, wars, agricultur it's all there.


On free market economy as a system for global economy - the adaption of this system is based on the theoretical assumption that it really works on that scale. It makes assumptions like the "homo oeconomicus", the economically rationally thinking human that are far from proven. Indeed, it looks a lot more like these assumptions are wrong, as humans decide for example much more on impulse in some financial aspects than on rational thinking. And even more so it becomes evident that the system is not working well, as can be seen by the instability of the economic system especially in countries that have less restrictions (The US was hit harder by the 2009 crisis than France or Germany for example).

Just like nature there are ups, downs, lefts, and rights this is the same for economy, technology, and our society. And just like nature it will eventually recover from the problems that started it.

Also way does it seem like you hate humanity?

[Zapgun]

The problem with Anarchy in human society is that eventually bubba will get his hells angels friends together and go become king of Smalls Ville. Anarchy can never truly rule for any significant length of time until it changes into another form of governing.

And dont you dare say thats from the view of this culture, I dont know WHAT culture you are referring to, you cannot say 'that culture' until you tell me which one.

This isn't a viewpoint as skewed from my cultural bias, but simply a take on human nature.

[tm20]

cool story bro, but can we get back onto the oil spill? any updates? last time i saw the news they said most of it (3/4) has been cleaned up. can anyone confirm this? thanks :nsmile:

[Tsyal Makto]

It's bull****. Most of that 3/4 was oil that was secretly dispersed in, literally, fly-by-night operations. It's still there, just beneath the surface, where it can still damage the ecosystem.

Hello dead Gulf of Mexico. :nsad:

[Aihwa]

It's bull****. Most of that 3/4 was oil that was secretly dispersed in, literally, fly-by-night operations. It's still there, just beneath the surface, where it can still damage the ecosystem.

Hello dead Gulf of Mexico. :nsad:


It wasn't a secret. It was to keep the maximum amount of shore life alive. The dispersed oil isn't moving as fast as a real slick would, it also has a lesser impact on the environment.

[Tsyal Makto]

Now we have massive underwater plumes to deal with, which can still damage life underwater. Dispersed oil is still oil, and it can still do damage.

What irks me is that they say it is "gone." That's it, just "gone." Why don't they just admit that it was dispersed if they are so sure of their success?

[Aihwa]

Because people will complain regardless, saying its "gone" makes the least amount of people angry.

[Zapgun]

They are doing their job, they don't need ten million people telling them how to do their job in ten million different ways, they are going to say whatever they need to to appease the howling mob so they can take care of the problem in peace.

[Tsyal Makto]

Totally forgot about this. :ntongue:



2. How could we have given the Free Market a chance when we have a goverment who has continually screwed the pooch? This whole banking crises STARTED becuase the goverment got involved. Telling the Banks to give loans to people who couldnt pay or who were in danger of not being able to pay.
The U.S. economy is far to stifling and controlling to be considered a real Free Market.
Hells Bells you dont have to look any further then the law the goverment passed making Health Insurance Companies unable to sell across State Lines!

How is Rand conservative? She was pretty socially liberal. (While Fiscally Conservative I will give you that.)

Yeah, Bush encouraged people to get larger loans than they could afford, but it was the banking and investment firms that took the idea and ran with it. Why did they do it? Because short term, whether the mortage holder can pay it back or not is a moot point, the bank and investment firm makes the profit regardless. That's the problem with the American banking system, it's all based on short-term gain, there is little regard for long term consequences, and when the bubble burst...kaput.

You're looking at the issue of Interstate Health Insurance from the wrong angle. It's not allowed because each state has it's own set of regulations and taxes regarding health insurance, not because the government doesn't want Interstate commerce of health insurance. It's a state's rights issue, not a federal issue.

Part of me really would like to see what a true free market would be like. I agree with some of the things Ron Paul says (his tea-o-con son is another story), especially that he says we are currently in a state of corporate fascism, a perfect example of it being the bailout.



Problem with that is America has taken upon itself to be the Worlds Policeman. You cant just start making massive cuts to military spending and expect things to stay on working order.
Now do I think the budget could and should be trimmed back? Of course I do! But at the same time I think they're are a lot of other bloated and bankrupt (And in some cases shouldnt even exist!) programs and agencies that either need to be axed or scaled back was well.
It also just so happens that while I think the U.S. Military should have a decrease in funding. I would only see a 10% reduction in five years total as well as focusing fundings strictly stuff thats possible or needed.

Well, who says we need to be the world's police? That's just imperialism, and empires always fall eventually. History is full of empires that have tried to do what we're doing right now - expanding it's borders throughout the world while trying to pinch pennies back home. It just doesn't work. Eventually, you run out of money, have a last stand in Afghanistan (AKA "The land where empires go to die," and the Romans, Soviets, British, and others will back that up), and fall.

We're trying to burn the candle at both ends, here. You can't have the largest military force in the world, while at the same time trying to run a country on low paying jobs and little taxation. We're hemorrhaging money, and we're trying to borrow our way out of it. Yes, I blame Obama for the deficit, and if I were him, I would have let the banks fail. They dug themselves into their situation, let them dig themselves out. Even after they got their $700 Billion, did they use it for something useful? No, they just squandered it on CEO bonuses. "Too Big To Fail" is bull****. Being in a free market means that you need to be free to fail as well. I like what Ron Paul said about the bailouts, "corporate socialism." That's exactly what it is. Conservatives hate the idea of hand-outs, but what was the bailout? A $700 Billion handout.

If we want to turn this thing around we need to accept two things: 1. Manufactoring must return to America, a superpower can't run on service industries alone, and 2. We need a progressive taxation system (hell, even Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, advocated a progressive tax system). I mean for god's sake, look what we are resorting to (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).