Oil, 2

daddywhumpus is mad, like a lot of people. Mad about the environmental and economic devastation in the Gulf caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Mad about what seems to be an entirely bungled effort at stopping and containing the spill. Mad about the political response. Mad about what appears to be an example of gross corporate negligence on the part of British Petroleum. He, like many others, wants BP to be fined out of existence by the US government.

I agree with the sentiments, and the public has a right to be angry. BP has made this mess, and they are responsible for it. It's going to cost the global economy/US economy on many levels, and it's hard to assess what the long-term effects will be. It's frustrating that a corporation has to be strong-armed into taking responsibility, and it's even more frustrating for certain politicians and political movements to be barking at the federal government and not the corporation, when they espouse "personal responsibility" in other things--when it suits them.

If I made this kid of mess, you can be damn sure I would be expected to clean it up. You could also assume that the clean-up might break me financially, and I might then have to fall back on the government for help. It depends on my available resources. British Petroleum recorded profits in FY09 of 16 billion, 759 million, according to their annual report, and 21b 666m/21b 169m in the preceding two years. 20 billion in an escrow account is, in this sense, hardly a "shakedown" or a "fleecing" as Reps. Barton and Bachmann called it yesterday.

BP needs to pay for clean-up and fall out, and, of course, in the end, those expenses will be passed on to the consumer, if at all possible. 20 billion is not just absorbed by for-profit corporations. They might tighten their belt elsewhere in their ledgers, but, unlike private citizens, who usually have to find extra funds by cutting expenses or getting second jobs, corporations have the option to charge their customers more in order to raise revenue.

But remember, your local BP gas station owners didn't cause this spill, either. Boycotting them won't help your local economy.

Oil

Roger Ebert doesn't need little ol' me to link to his blog, but just in case you don't already go there once in a while, this is a good one. It brings to the surface some of the things that have been troubling me about the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent spill. Some of the things. He scratches at the political surface of the issue. I have much more thinking to do about the political turmoil of the situation, and this blog has helped me on my way.

If you go there, and read it, come back here and comment. I am interested in what critically-thinking individuals have to say. By that, I mean, not a comment argument on Facebook, which thrown ridiculous rhetoric around like confetti at a prom.

Vigil?

OK, I don't get it. I admit it. Various groups around the country are holding vigils... vigils for the oil spill and those affected by it. I think it's odd. Time, money, and organizational skills have gone into a visibility campaign that, at best, will probably be simply cloying and be looked at as a bunch of lefty tree huggers drumming up political publicity.

Wouldn't those resources be better spent looking at causes and advocating fixes, so that this has less of a chance of happening again? Or actual fundraisers for the individuals who are suffering because of it? Or donations to animal rescue organizations?

Candlelight vigils at this point seem rather trite.

Better Off

I was sick over my 40th birthday weekend; I am still sick now; I have a crap load of work to catch up on; it was 96 degrees yesterday.


But there's some good news.

WOO HOO! I'M FORTY!

That's all for now.

I get news searches

What with Justice Stevens' retirement and all the talk about the religious make-up of the Court, which, I might add, I don't believe was started by non-believers, many started suggesting that we could wind up without a Protestant for the first time in history. This led to speculation that President Obama should appoint another Protestant. This led to non-believers saying "Hey, what about us?"

It's an interesting proposition. Impossible, given our polling numbers. But it is interesting nonetheless. I would like to see a qualified liberal with a rational mind and sharp knowledge of Constitutional Law who knows how to keep his or her spiritual-or-other beliefs out of his or her job. He or she does not have to be an agnostic or atheist. Frankly, we shouldn't even know the religious persuasion (or other) of our judges and political officials, but Americans make that impossible. Which is why we have only one out major elected official who is a nonbeliever. There could be more, but they are in the closet. We know to keep our heads down most of the time.

One of my news searches this week brought up a link to a "moderate blog" which says it's "an Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right."

The title is "Anti-religion on the court?" and it got me thinking. It starts out with the Constitution's clause regarding no religious test being required for public office. Many states still have them, though they are not often enforced. That is, I think, where the word "required" comes in. It may not be required, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't allowed. The blog is saying that atheists' "demands" that a nonbeliever be appointed amount to the imposition of a religious test and are therefore a violation of the Constitution.

First of all, I don't think this is a demand, and, as I said and as the links above bear out, I don't believe this was started by non-believers. It was all the questioning over whether or not Justice Stevens should be replaced by another Protestant that started many nonbelievers thinking. I guess it was fine to suggest a Protestant.

The blog then goes on to say "the insistence that a Supreme Court Justice adopt an attitude of open hatred and contempt towards religious believers is a dangerous indulgence."


Huh? Where did the open hatred and contempt come from? Advocating for a nonbeliever is not the same thing as advocating for an "attitude of open hatred and contempt towards religious believers." That's a nice load of prejudice and contempt toward nonbelievers, methinks. It goes on to intimate that advocating for the appointment of a nonbeliever on the Supreme Court bench would be tantamount to "the Supreme Court... openly act[ing] to force religious belief into a secretive and shameful underground practice."


Paranoid much?


For many Americans, merely talking about being a nonbeliever is enough to cause persecution of--and is an act of hatred and contempt for--religion. The author thinks that asking for religion to be kept private and away from public policy is forcing religion into a dark and secretive place "much in the same way as homosexuality was during the darkest times of the gay rights movement."

Oh, please.

Atheists are no longer remaining in our closet, so we must be forcing religion into its own. This author says he has no problem with atheists and agnostics, but "to demand 'representation' for an aggressively atheist and anti-religion Supreme Court Justice seems no different than demanding a Supreme Court Justice be openly racist." Again, oh please. Nowhere in the op-ed piece to which this author is responding does the author for someone who is "aggressively atheist" or "anti-religion." But, as we all know, any open atheist is an aggressive atheist.


The author has some advice: "...the sooner that more atheists get the distinction between non-religion and anti-religion, the sooner their movement will stop shooting itself in its political foot."


Pot, meet kettle.

I give you, our governor

Apparently, Governor Pawlenty's long-term solution for education funding involves the fact that public employees are over-benefited and over-paid. Got that, teachers? It's your salary and benefit packages that are to blame.

While I readily admit that our benefits at my public institution are excellent, it's also apparent that, were they not so excellent, the state would have wound up paying, one way or another, when our son was born extremely premature and the bills started to pour in. $385,000 would have had to come from somewhere. Medical assistance, bankruptcy, total ruin, take your pick. What kind of contributor to society would I be without those benefits? With those excellent benefits, I continue to work, pay my bills, and even do my patriotic duty by both saving and shopping.