Click pic for more
UPDATE: Obama is furious. You can’t tell it by his voice or his face or his pounding the table (which is isn’t doing) or anything, really. But he does say, “My job is to solve this problem.” Uhhh… OK. I feel so much better now. So… ummm, I forget. What is he going to do?
Here are more clips from the hard hitting, no holds bared interview with… Larry King… OK, forget the hard hitting and all that part.
Oh, the irony…
I just saw a CNN piece about Obama visiting the southern coast. Shows him walking along a pristine beach, oddly with crime scene tape keeping him from getting close to the water. He pointed at what looked to be someone’s footprints in the sand. Now that’s what I call pollution.
And, poor baby, he’s had to cancel his vacation to Indonesia again. Will the kids never get to see the mosque he attended as a child? I’m sorry. I meant “school.” The “school” he attended as a child.
#8 You can see drilling rigs from the coast in quite a few places along the gulf. The rich coastal dwellers are not to blame here, but the public still subsidizes them with flood insurance.
#20 amodedoma has no point, and your takedown is well appreciated. Obama isn’t going to pay for the incident; he might for his response. Democrats need to channel angry public sentiment to achieve unrelated poltical ends. If Obama can point to environmental legislation of substance rammed through because of the disaster he walks on this. Otherwise he’s toast.
#21 My turn: Stopping this is a technical challenge which has little, if anything, to do with politicians. It is going to take as long as it will take. One way or another the 11th largest body of water in the world is fouled for a few decades. I’m not being flip; it’s the truth. If the pols do nothing because of this it is an even larger tragedy.
One doesn’t want an all the time activist government. When something like this happens the stick needs to be wielded with great viciousness against the offending party: BP.
If BP continues as a operating entity everybody learns what the big banks already know. If you have an inc or llc after your name you can do whatever you like.
An example needs to be made. It goes past the horror of the spill, and is altogether more important.
That is Obama’s test.
Chris–given the general tenor of your post, what do you mean by “One doesn’t want an all the time activist government.” I would think that is EXACTLY what this incident reveals.
Seems to me that a government that is not all the time activist in what we have right now with the oil spill as a result.
Futher, I think your focusing on punishment is a very christian orientation. Seems to me “the lesson” to be learned here is that we need to get off oil so that we don’t need to drill in deep water anymore?
and to REALLY LEARN FROM THIS EXAMPLE we need to apply it to other high risk high pollution energy extracting events: Nuclear Power. All the same issues are present. Same risks. Same minimal returns with high risk shifted to society.
I assume thats what you mean?
Sir Bobbo of Loquacious Blog Line Nicknames,
You misunderstand me. There is no moral component to my argument.
The headline story of this era is the rise of “non-state actors.” This was first used in regular media to describe terrorist groups. These would be groups with the ability to affect the flow of events in the entire world, but lacking a defined geographical area where they are vulnerable.
This group, as framed by me, includes a larger variety of actors: Multi-national corporations(the descriptor says it all), NGOs, investors, private military contractors, LBO firms(the corporate version of the mafia “bust out”), smugglers, and various scale religions.
Conflicts between state and religion go back hundreds of years. Now it is everyone versus everyone.
Obama needs to dismember BP because the state cannot continually bow to non-state actors. He is the leader of the most militarily powerful state in the history of the world. We make Rome look like “celeb” Fabio.
Bush Jr. understood the basic problem. Somebody must be hit. He proceeded to hit the wrong people in the wrong ways.
Obama faces the same basic challenge, and he looks like a sucker too(in a different way, of course).
Needed: Balls and Brains.
Thanks Chris. In a vacuum, I agree with what you say at #68 but it is irrelevant and tangential to the point I made at #67 which was a refutation of what you posted at #66.
As simple as a straight line, but you choose not to engage. Fair enough. Perhaps my effort to fine tune your conflicted post is seen as only a quibble? but your fine musings at #68 lead me to think otherwise.
Good point: the world is filled with non-governmental actors and by such characterization they are “dangerous” when not acting in support of express governmental franchise==such as, every corporation in the world, or at least the for-profit ones.
Lets try a few more quibbles: you say:
“Obama needs to dismember BP because the state cannot continually bow to non-state actors.” /// No. Obama needs to reregulate off shore drilling, or the energy policy of America, or however else you want to characterize the issue. Killing off BP alone would do little to avoid the next crises. SORRY–but the JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO REGULATE. If actually requiring BP to clean up the gulf spill in TOTALITY drives BP to bankruptcy, then such is the payment to the piper, but it should not be the goal==again, only because that would not be effective. Criminals always think they aren’t going to be caught. Look at SlootMan as just a corporate CEO in training.
You say: “Bush Jr. understood the basic problem. Somebody must be hit. He proceeded to hit the wrong people in the wrong ways.” /// Wrong again for the same reasons as above. We lost a One Billion dollar asset with the destrution of WTC. “Hitting back” as you so euphemistically call it at a cost of TRILLIONS of dollars is truly a retarded response. Patriotic, yes, but still RETARDED!!! We should have then, and should for the “next” incident, instead “be smart.” Understand the adversary and do little cheap things with great consequences that matter. For example: not allow women to cover themselves up. This would be much like removing the ball and chain from others kept in servitude. You free the women, you free the society. A free society does not all choose the same thing==the same religion. The lock step march of stupidity is terminated==we win because everyone wins.
More than quibbles?
Any idiot that puts his political afiliation before his concern for the environment deserves to live in the shithole world his indifference creates.
But what about the rest of us?!
“But what about the rest of us?!” /// Well, the rest of us get to live in that very same shit hole that “we” allow said idiot to create. You’d think it would unite us to protect good Mother Earth—until you hear our elected leaders say such idiots should be immune from liability in order to “keep jobs” for small Mom and Pop offshore international drillers.
The concern for average people makes me tear up.
#69 Smart and active regulators would be a wonderful thing.
My point is that this is another manifestation of a specific sort of problem faced by states. Other types of organizations have become adept at jumping between legal/tax jurisdictions to protect themselves against any individual government’s actions.
BP is bigger than a lot of small countries. That size, in this case financial, makes traditional remedies silly. Fine BP and they will have a tax advantage. Garnish their profits to pay for the cleanup and they will just structure it so the profit appears in some other country.
The way to get BP is to fire the board, all executives, and wipe out shareholders. BP managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to minimize the bill for the cleanup and buying new safety gear across their operations. That concern needs to shelved until this problem is solved.
Chris–I admire your enthusiasm but your are ping-ponging all over the place. Very Large Int’l Corporations are not that hard to “control” if the will is there. Eg–tax revenue earned in the USA rather than give them an exemption for the same.
I suspect the basis for “any” of your recommendations when you don’t understand that only the Board Members have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders and the CEO, managers, and employees are responsible to the Board to fulfill that duty. That may be a quibble in your mind, but its quite important.
Same with all other regulations. “Easy” to do if the will is there. The will will never be there when Congress is corrupted by self interest to coerce money from large corps to run their political campaigns. Another eg: Public Financing of elections could do a lot to remove the influence of money, party politics, and corruption from our current approach. It won’t happen for just that reason.
Bobbo,
I’m focusing on the scale of the harm that has been caused. Punishing unsecured investors is exactly what motivates the corporate directors, it just happens indirectly.
When dealing with any company that has caused disproportionate harm YOU HAVE TO FIRE SENIOR MANAGEMENT.
Other oil companies would be forced to do massive CapEx on safety equipment or face shareholder revolts.
All of that is only triggered by government action. Any regulatory agency is going to take years to rebuild. There are all sorts of special employment statuses in the gov’t that allow people to have no salary cap as well be officially useless.
Bush 2 made great efforts for the public to self-censor. Government can do exactly the same thing to corporations. It would be especially newsworthy because it hasn’t happened in decades.
Chris–returning to “basics,” by what mechanism does Senior Management get fired and who does it? Any trial or appeal process? Fact finding?
While I agree that many in BP’s senior management “should lose their jobs” I’m at a loss as to how that could ever be affected.
Are you thinking of Congress passing a law stating that “all senior management of any responsible drilling company that spills more than 6 million barrels of oil into the ocean shall lose their jobs?”–or maybe more appropriatately be guilty of felony environmental disrespect a felony and serve from 5-15 years?
Knock, knock?
Federal Asset Seizure laws are very broad.
A crime does not need to be proven for assets to be seized, and the process of seizure is expedited. Take enough that BP is bankrupt (you could probably only get their North American operations). Once they are bankrupt the unsecured shareholders are done.
The US government and secured-debt holders would then piece off BPs salable assets and networks under an administrator appointed by the bankruptcy court. Anything left over would be retained by BP and they would exit bankruptcy.
You might think you’re being flip by suggesting that this would work by tossing up a bunch of BS charges. That’s exactly the way it would work. This happens every day thousands of times nationwide.
Prosecutors charge somebody with 300 counts totaling 9,000 years. They work it out to 5 years, and the guy goes to jail.
If you write the book everything is by the book.
Chris–the only asset seizure law I know of are those involving drug violations. I imagine there could be ones for certain RICO offenses, maybe money laundering, receipt of stolen property and so forth. I don’t see how that “concept” applies to BP oil spills.
Your thinking process is entirely erratic. More a process of Mr Potato Head application of ideas and concepts just applied to a subject with no understanding connection between the subject at hand and the idea presented. “Sounds good” on the surface, no substance underneath.
The specific method is unimportant. I am not an expert on using powers of the state to attack a multi-national.
I guess the closest term is “Lawfare,” where you attack through the legal system.
This is the most plausible choice available to modern presidents. The regulatory capacity in this industry is going to take years of effort to rebuild. Regulators need steady funding, a separation from elected leadership, and skilled personnel. The government is starting from almost zero.
We can’t police all the oil companies, and all of them know it. The door is wide open. What we can do is hurt the one that caused the problem.
Chris–ok. “The specific method is unimportant.” //// I guess that means anyone who feels aggrieved can just walk into BP’s office and do as they please?
Think about it for just a minute or two. What does “We are a nation of laws” mean to you?
Your thought process is quite quixotic. “BP”–Beyond Practical in your case.
No, if you want to be relevant, the flight of tangential nonsense needs to be reeled in. In proper light, its not even “thinking.”