okay now why would a bp executive go to jail for that? unless you think they personally oversee the construction and management of said site (spoiler: they really dont)
cuz heres the thing:
- the actual rig was constructed by hyundai, any concerns regarding the safety of the rig should be taken up with them
- the rig was managed by a contractor based in switzerland hired by bp known as transocean <--- for the record your beef should be with these dudes if you're talking about the spill
the only thing putting an exec behind bars would do is satisfy your desire to see someone indicted and frankly, that's not what the point of the judicial system is for. and to be honest, i for one am not okay with jailing people just because it satisfies some deep misguided resentment i have towards the idea of uber rich ceos
Now this is why I love this section of the forum, because the bloggers here compensate any lack of knowledge that I have on issues (and stand corrected afterwards)!
Under the circumstances, so long as no executives knew about the defects of the rig, then yes whoever had the final say in how the rig was built between Hyundai and the Swiss contractor should be the one (or individuals) facing jail time. If there is an international jurisdiction issue, they should be extradited for crimes against the United States. And the companies involved should also be responsible for paying as much as they can for the clean up, if not for the whole damned thing, so long as it doesn't cause them to go belly up. That would send a message to other similar companies that if they cut corners, their contractor won't be alone in having to pay for it, and well as telling executives that misconduct is very punishable.
And no, I don't just want a scapegoat. That is the last thing I want, and put a guilty person going free to someone who is innocent, either by having nothing to do with the crime, or mistake of omission, go to jail. I seek justice, not revenge. I am pissed of that it seems that the wealthy have this ability to avoid justice by throwing their money to stay out of jail like most people. If the Hyundai and/or Swiss contactor executive responsible for the incompetent job is in jail now, then that would be justice to the people and wildlife affected.
I think the issue is the popular idea of "cost" is simply too narrow, when in reality it's not. It seems most look at cost in a small time period of direct cause-and-effect (e.g., buying a meal), rather than at the larger picture (e.g., buying ingredients and making food). This shows in personal finance, but also discussions about politics and business and other things. Not to mention cost over time (e.g., paying up front or paying over time), action (e.g., a postal service) and inaction (e.g., no postal service) have costs, and something else I can't quite remember now.
In the case of BP, of course BP doesn't make money off the spill, just like banking companies don't make money off being fined. But oftentimes, the fines are simply a cost of doing business. If only fines are levied, and if there remains net profit from doing something illegal, then it's worthwhile to commit fraud or negligence or whatever else.
I don't think jailing is the right option because the current retributive justice system is a joke, and there's no single person or group of people directly at fault. But fines are only an expense, much like pens or paper. And so long as it's still profitable after fines, then what's the point? Governments, ideally, have more power than simply enacting fines, all the way up to the nuclear option of dissolving corporations if necessary.
edit: I think the "something else" was who pays the cost. For example, prior to lead regulations, consumers paid the cost in quantifiable quantities (healthcare costs) and less quantifiable quantities (physical and mental health, quality of life, etc).
I agree that by just fining corporations, even if it is just billions, might not be enough to force wealthy business owners to think twice before committing some form of fraud or malpractice. Some might hate the idea of having to pay money, but for others, the nightmare prospect of going to jail (and I don't mean a damned country prison, I mean hard time!) might be necessary to get them to behave.
And if there indeed isn't just a single person or committee making these sorts of executive decisions, then yes, prosecution would be problematic at best. After all, we don't want a scapegoat. Jailing an innocent person would be worthless, and would bring a false sense of justice to those affected (unless evidence comes to light that the pour soul jailed was a patsy).
I am arguing, however, that BP has paid a significant enough price to serve as a deterrent. I don't think that we ought to be throwing anyone in jail or levying additional fines or whatever nebulous punishments JES was originally suggesting (and which prompted my response).
I think we'll just agree on the first point, and agree to disagree on the second point. But given that what I know, it seems that BP only paid for Deepwater Horizon. If they didn't even know about the defects, Hyundai and the Swiss contractor should have been held mostly responsible, and those who had the final say in the matter should be in jail, unless they had executives under them who hid the defects from them.
If I were a rich sociopath, I wouldn't care too much about the money. I could cut my workers and executives pay, lay off workers, ship jobs overseas to pay less in wages, and I'm sure there are a bunch of other sneaky options to absorb the costs, and eventually, my huge company would recover from the loss in the long term. It'd be my company, I'd reason, and I could do whatever the hell I want. These are the type of people who are in charge of these sorts of company, and indirectly run the country. But I'd sure as hell take the safer option if I were taking the risk of doing hard time in an orange suit!
I highly doubt that Deepwater Horizon would have been defective if the executives responsible had to take the possibility of jail time into their equation.
Jumping in here in the middle of a fierce debate on BP...
I'd like to note that for anyone who is unhappy that they'll most likely have to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the fall, there are two viable alternate options: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. I myself am a libertarian-minded voter but registered independent and can't stand either Hillary or Trump.
I'm with you here. Like I said, we need to find like minded people who are only voting for Shillary or The Donald because they consider them the lesser of two evils. This is the only way to stop those in power from gaming the system. I'm just waiting for someone to say something like "Yes, let's do that", or "I have a bunch of friends on Facebook who would totally join us", or even "I know a good political blog where we can debate which candidate to coordinate a vote"!
Unless it eases your mind to vote for somebody that has a 0% chance of winning, you are better off voting for who you believe to be the lesser of two evils.
I'm glad you brought up that point, because I've had some very heated discussions pertaining to this. Namely refusing to vote for Hillary, because
1) she has an unfair advantage of 500 pledged delegates, and there are many rules here and there that appear to be made to prevent anyone who the DNC doesn't want from getting the nomination.
2) I'm pissed I never even got a say in who is the Democratic nominee, though I admit I have to take at least some responsibility for being uninformed about the cost of being a registered Independent. The New York Independents had it far worse, with the deadline being last year in November, before anyone even started feelin' the Bern. There have also been other similar instances of voter fraud, suppression, and misrepresentation, and the Bernie supporters are rightfully pissed. The recent event in Las Vegas was a travesty. I feel like we're being told "okay, here's your candidate to vote for, and if you don't like him or her, screw you, and go vote for the other guy, who is probably even worse BTW! Have fun,
you stupid peasent!!! ;D
3) Her past alleged crimes have perhaps rightfully pegged her as untrustworthy. Benghazi, the E-mail scandal (which I hate to say it, but maybe Sanders shouldn't have waved away), and allegedly helping to cover up her husband's sex crimes, if even one of them is true, makes her unfit for Washington, let alone as my representative on the highest office. And those are the less conspiratorial subjects. I'm afraid of what I could find if I digged deeper. She is definitely not anywhere as pure in her convictions as the Khaleesi, let me put it that way!
He's saying that in refusing to vote for her, and voting Independent, I'm voting for Trump. But I don't care, because I'm frustrated with a system that is run essentially by a group of wealthy individuals, who basically buy who they want in the Oval Office, and unless you're rich and famous like Trump, it's an uphill battle, and the system is still designed to throw curveballs at those not part of the establishment.
I feel by voting for either of them, I'm basically saying "I know the system is rigged, and I'm okay with that". Even more so, I'm responsible for any consequences that happen, such as the massive wealth inequality and lack of accountability regarding the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident that happened in 2008 and 2010 respectively, a result of näively voting for Barack Obama. I don't want to feel that responsibility, that I should go up to him or her and say "hey, what the hell?!!", or even slap him or her silly.
I feel that a vote is a vote of confidence that that person is the type of person who all I have to do is talk or write a correspondence to, and he or she will always pull whatever strings it takes to at least get the ball rolling (in my case, addressing wealth inequality, but especially corrupt campaign financing and climate change), and if he or she says "I'm sorry, but I don't share your beliefs", it is not because they are being paid off to make sure that it never happens, because they just don't share my beliefs, and it is a case of agreeing to disagree.
Not that I would vote for someone who doesn't share such such important beliefs in the first place. And these are important issues that I think should be the primary focus for Hillary, especially under the socio-political climate, and I suspect that Bernie wouldn't be doing so well if most people knew they could trust Hillary to do what is good (or even necessary) for them, over those who have contributed to her campaigns should they request favors, but I don't expect her to campaign from state to state on such a political platform.
At least by voting for an Independent, I can at least take the (perhaps small) moral high ground that whatever we get, unless the person I voted for gets into office, people who voted for their candidate will definitely get the government they deserve, but I don't deserve any part in it.
I think that this is partially why many conspiracy theorist come off as rude to anyone who questions that it might be real: because they are frustrated that they are surrounded by, quite frankly, ignorant, uninformed sheep who aren't doing anything about that is going on, and the concept of true democracy could well be standing on the edge of a cliff, and we definitely don't want to go into the abyss, and those truly in power are herding everyone towards it. I feel that
I'm not the problem. The problem is those who are unaware the political system is a sham, or have rightfully come to the conclusion, but have also concluded that it is too big a fix to ever have any hope of fighting against, rather than trying to do something.
if ur still thinking of voting for jill stein after seeing her positions on homeopathy + vaccines...whoa laddie. shes just some marin county hipster soccer mom who keeps trying to run for office
But is she anywhere as bad as Hillary or Trump? I mean, if she has engaged in any of the activities Hillary has been accused of, as well as taking donations for later favors, then yes, that is a deal breaker. Otherwise, I still think she would be the lesser of two evils. I don't mind people who just believe what they believe, so long as they don't try to violate the Constitution or our rights. Now someone who says what they say just to get votes, or does what they do because someone paid for their campaign, and is now calling in favors is someone that I do not want in office, because that is a trust issue, and I feel is likely not to give a Rattata's ass about my concerns, unless his or her benefactors are okay with it.
Still, you also brought up a good subject: what negatives due the third party and independent candidates have, and do they outweigh the benefits?
Probably because there aren't enough people who know about the system being rigged, or they think it isn't worth trying. But the number of Trump and Bernie supporters shows that the number of people who are willing to try something is growing. I really hope that this year will be different. Even if we can't elect the candidate we think is best, maybe we can create a community where we'll continue to coordinate voting in other elections (such as the Senate and Congress), and I'm sure that many people have ideas for fighting the system that they want to try, but would take a lot of coordination and planning to pull off.
Very few people are actually going to vote for Johnson or Stein. The best a Libertarian candidate has ever done was 1%. Nader won a bit under 3% in 2000 but most elections the Green Party gets well under 1%.
Sure, they'll do better this year than on average. But don't act like any of them are getting to anything above 5% and even 5% is pushing it. People don't bother. They either just leave the top of the ballot blank and vote down ballot, or they don't show up to vote at all.
Probably because there aren't enough people who know about the system being rigged, or they think it isn't worth trying. But the number of Trump and Bernie supporters shows that the number of people who are willing to try something is growing. I really hope that this year will be different. Even if we can't elect the candidate we think is best, maybe we can create a community where we'll continue to coordinate voting in other elections (such as the Senate and Congress), and I'm sure that many people have ideas for fighting the system that they want to try, but would take a lot of coordination and planning to pull off.
As the constitution says, literally zero power whatsoever. A figurehead president for the party DOES tend to sway the opinion of a few senators votes, and executive orders.......sort of have an effect but not really. It's really just that president and party majority in congress go hand in hand 1st half of the term, then people think "the president" is doing a bad job so they go 180 on congress. Don't ask me why. And as for executive orders, they don't really impact sweeping changes. If america REALLY cared about the "mandatory backgorund checks" obama signed a few years ago, and it affected like.....anybody? then it can easily be struck as unconstitutional. Take the recent rumored ruling of transgender bathroom use by the current administration? It's not like anybody was having a hard time for the past 30 years, just that the 'status quo' was interrupted by one state. So everybody suddenly acts like it's the end of the world, when in reality the status quo is just maintained. But that's a tangent to what I was saying originally I think?
Basically, 'the wall' is not going to be built. Nor do I care that anybody is revamping the tax code, because they're not voting on the tax code. The president is the FACE of the country, the prime ambassador to our closest allies, and the head of the military. Nothing more.
Which is why I'm not going to be voting for somebody that uses twitter instead of speeches to talk about china's foreign policy. The litmus test for whether you can be president is "can you be trusted not to press the Big Red Button?" not whodoIstandwith.com
That's actually a good point, and I don't think enough people are aware of how important it is that they are well informed for who they vote for in Congress, if they even vote at all. This is no small part of the reason why our country is going to the dogs. The most that the President can really do is galvanize people to unite in common causes, including voting for congress candidates who will get done what they want done, be it campaign finance or if it really means anything, immigration reform. That, and deciding who joins the Supreme Court, which can help them in their causes.
