Love the article, and hope to see many more like it, not least because we actually have a debate developing and not the usual group based consensus. I work for a large multinational too, and despite the fact there is plenty of propaganda about how we should put our customers first, have high standards of integrity, etc, etc, when push comes to shove, it's the bottom line that counts. And not the bottom line over the next decade or two, but the next quarter. So costs are cut, staff are dismissed, standards are dropped, just so we can keep the Wall Street boys happy in Quarter Two. And don't we all know how dependable they are? As they say on The Wire, 'Follow the money'.
AkJoey said:
I live in Alaska and have a fishing boat in Prince William sound, so I know first hand, it is fine now, I dont know why everyone is still going on about it, there are plenty of fish and I basically am dodging sea otters, seals, sea lions and any other marine mamals you can think of all of the time. although it was a major tragedy and I am by no means sticking up for the exxon corporation, I think it is time to let it go.
It's great that the life is coming back, but that's not the point .
I had just started fishing there the year before the spill.
Do you know how hard it was to buy a boat, permit and gear as an 18 year old? How many years I worked to save the money to start fishing for myself?
I lost it all after that spill.
It's 20 years later and we still haven't seen the money promised us. If they drag it out long enough, most all the people involved will be dead. Hell, most of the men who taught me to fish are. They went to their graves having lost a huge part of their lives there, and never were paid the money due them.
Exxon could have done the right thing years ago.
How much profit did they make in just the past year?
In terms of the litigation issue, and how long Exxon are prepared to string it out, I guess it's hardly surprising. Invididual cases of mesophylioma from asbestos exposure have often been strung out in the UK in the certain knowledge that the victims tend not to survive too long. Or, the most glaring case of getting off Scot free - Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster. 20,000 dead, gassed to death. When Saddam Hussein did it, it was a crime against his people, when a corporation does it, the lawyers rush to bury the issue in legal complexities, and avoid any implication of corporate responsibility. Do we really think that oil companies in Nigeria, Chinese businesses in Sudan or Zimbabwe, or Italian toxic waste disposal firms are operating at what we consider acceptable standards of corporate and social integrity? The only surprising thing is that anyone is surprised when companies behave like this.
AkJoey said:
I live in Alaska and have a fishing boat in Prince William sound, so I know first hand, it is fine now, I dont know why everyone is still going on about it, there are plenty of fish and I basically am dodging sea otters, seals, sea lions and any other marine mamals you can think of all of the time. although it was a major tragedy and I am by no means sticking up for the exxon corporation, I think it is time to let it go.
It's great that the life is coming back, but that's not the point .
I had just started fishing there the year before the spill.
Do you know how hard it was to buy a boat, permit and gear as an 18 year old? How many years I worked to save the money to start fishing for myself?
I lost it all after that spill.
It's 20 years later and we still haven't seen the money promised us. If they drag it out long enough, most all the people involved will be dead. Hell, most of the men who taught me to fish are. They went to their graves having lost a huge part of their lives there, and never were paid the money due them.
Exxon could have done the right thing years ago.
How much profit did they make in just the past year?
We have an article going live at 10 am detailing how tough the spill was on the local fishermen (it goes into detail about the permit issue) -- I very much hope you'll comment on it -- I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
AkJoey said:
I live in Alaska and have a fishing boat in Prince William sound, so I know first hand, it is fine now, I dont know why everyone is still going on about it, there are plenty of fish and I basically am dodging sea otters, seals, sea lions and any other marine mamals you can think of all of the time. although it was a major tragedy and I am by no means sticking up for the exxon corporation, I think it is time to let it go.
It's great that the life is coming back, but that's not the point .
I had just started fishing there the year before the spill.
Do you know how hard it was to buy a boat, permit and gear as an 18 year old? How many years I worked to save the money to start fishing for myself?
I lost it all after that spill.
It's 20 years later and we still haven't seen the money promised us. If they drag it out long enough, most all the people involved will be dead. Hell, most of the men who taught me to fish are. They went to their graves having lost a huge part of their lives there, and never were paid the money due them.
Exxon could have done the right thing years ago.
How much profit did they make in just the past year?
We have an article going live at 10 am detailing how tough the spill was on the local fishermen (it goes into detail about the permit issue) -- I very much hope you'll comment on it -- I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
10 am Pacific? I'm very interested in reading more on this.
TLDNR'ing a brief and well-written article like this one is nothing to be proud of.
It's bad enough to be content in your ignorance but it's just stupid to take kindergarten-grade cheap shots about the content of something you didn't read.
Attitudes like this writ large are a big reason why your guys got their asses handed to them in the last two elections.
TLDNR'ing a brief and well-written article like this one is nothing to be proud of.
It's bad enough to be content in your ignorance but it's just stupid to take kindergarten-grade cheap shots about the content of something you didn't read.
Attitudes like this writ large are a big reason why your guys got their asses handed to them in the last two elections.
TLDNR'ing a brief and well-written article like this one is nothing to be proud of.
It's bad enough to be content in your ignorance but it's just stupid to take kindergarten-grade cheap shots about the content of something you didn't read.
Attitudes like this writ large are a big reason why your guys got their asses handed to them in the last two elections.
But you didn't read it, right? You might want to look into who wrote it and then figure out which one of you--you or the author--is a New York Times bestselling author. Shouldn't take long.
Also: congratulations on posting more in this thread than anyone else! You've shown us all how little you care.
Y'all, all that theconservative, is saying is that it's a badly written article even though he didn't read it. What's functionally illogical about that?
wildswan said:
Y'all, all that theconservative, is saying is that it's a badly written article even though he didn't read it. What's functionally illogical about that?
wildswan said:
Y'all, all that theconservative, is saying is that it's a badly written article even though he didn't read it. What's functionally illogical about that?
Unfair standards!
liberals...
I know. Whateryougoingtodo? Complete elitist assholery.
Nice job Greg, your article made it onto The Raw Story!
How long it will take for Alaskans to realize that their most precious natural resources are the ones worth preserving? With former Gov. Palin trying to do everything in her power to mainline oil companys' interests over those of the wildlife, she's willing to sacrifice everything, including her own morals. When ever a seat opens on the State's Supreme Court, Alaskan law requires a panel to vet a list of potential candidates for appointment by the Governor (she has no say except the final approval from a list of vetted candidates). She was given the choice between a man and a woman; one worked as an environmental lawyer, the other served on the board of Planned Parenthood, both of them support the Pro-Choice movement. Hmm, which one to choose?
Facing the ire of social conservatives, Palin decided to defy their wishes by appointing Judge Morgan Christen over the environmental lawyer, Eric Smith. While I applaud Christen's recent appointment to the Court, Palin's selective reasoning was less then noble. For Palin, her criteria was narrow and accordingly she selected the lesser of two evils. Despite the American Family Council's (AFC aka the AFA) desperate urging for Palin to select Smith instead of Christen, Palin could not bring herself to appoint the very man who stood in the way of energy expansion in the Cook Inlet (The main watercourse leading into Anchorage). Along with other environmental groups, Smith had fought to have the Beluga Whale classified as endangered and won with Pres. Bush authorizing endangerment status last year, however Palin has expressed her intent to challenge the classification earlier this year. I guess the last thing she needs is to appoint the man who fought for the legal protections that she is currently fighting against now. Given choice, she has no choice, Palin will always choose oil over life.
I'm on the verge of quitting my job so I can go and visit my sister and her kids in the North Pacific. I plan on doing some traveling and may take another trip back up to Alaska. If I decide to go, I'll try to take a side trip to the 'Sound just so I too can "stick my hand in it".
I didn't see a link here to the actual report from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council, so I thought I'd post it in case someone wanted to read up on it:
It is unfortunate that it takes a disaster of this magnitude to shake us from our complacency and make us see how greatly nature has blessed us here in Alaska and elsewhere in our great country, and to understand how easily and quickly humans can despoil it. Such an environmental disaster makes us realize how much we depend on our natural world and how much harm reckless acts can inflict on our lives and the lives of our families. It is important that we remember and learn from such events. It is in that spirit that we present this 20th Anniversary Status Report.
Craig Tillery
Deputy Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law
[O]ne of the most stunning revelations of Trustee Council-funded monitoring over the last ten years is that Exxon Valdez oil persists in the environment and, in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill. This was not expected at the time of the spill or even ten years later. [...] The amount of Exxon Valdez oil remaining substantially exceeds the sum total of all previous oil pollution on beaches in Prince William Sound, including oil spilled during the 1964 earthquake. [The] oil is decreasing at a rate of 0-4% per year, with only a 5% chance that the rate is as high as 4%. At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely.
Resident killer whales in Alaska have generally been increasing since the 1980s. However, the recovery of the AB pod is slower than the growth of other fish-eating pods in Prince William Sound or in Southeast Alaska. Their full recovery to pre-spill levels will likely take an additional decade or more, if their recovery is not further compromised. For the transient AT1 population, there appears to be no hope for recovery. There has not been a successful recruitment to the pod since prior to the spill. This unique population will likely become extinct as the remaining members continue to age and die.
Herring populations were initially damaged by the spill and, for reasons that are not clear, have not rebounded in the subsequent 20 years since the spill. Due to the decreased population, the herring fishery in the Sound has been closed for 13 of the 19 years since the spill. The population began increasing again in 1997 and the fishery was opened briefly in 1997 and 1998. However, the population increase stalled in 1999, and continued disease impacts on the population may be limiting their recovery. The fishery remains closed.
For those of you curious what kind of payout people received, my dad's close friends received $50,000-ish, before taxes...for 20 years of lost wages and hardship. That's the swell one-to-one ratio Riki Ott discusses here.
Thanks, Exxon. Thanks Supreme Court. Now go fuck yourself.
The question I ask is whether punitive damage laws work or whether corporations can wiggle out of them. The theory in limiting damages is that juries had a habit of rewarding "excessive" damages that were not in proportion with the offense committed. I've found that for every instance of that phenomenon, I found fifty like this one where corporations used loopholes to wiggle out of their responsibilities.
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."
that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?
theconservative said:
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."
that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?
I'm afraid when you start with criticism of others' writing, you open the door to criticism of your own. Sorry but them's the rules. If you noticed Mr. Palast's unique writing style and use of all caps, then I guess it had the intended effect - to draw your attention and affect some sort of response. It seems to me that you engaged in attacking the messenger (or his mode of delivery in this case) instead of actually trying to dispute or challenge the actual message. Don't act so surprised that it irritated a number of other people enough to respond in kind to you.
theconservative said:
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."
that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?
I'm afraid when you start with criticism of others' writing, you open the door to criticism of your own. Sorry but them's the rules. If you noticed Mr. Palast's unique writing style and use of all caps, then I guess it had the intended effect - to draw your attention and affect some sort of response. It seems to me that you engaged in attacking the messenger (or his mode of delivery in this case) instead of actually trying to dispute or challenge the actual message. Don't act so surprised that it irritated a number of other people enough to respond in kind to you.
i never intended to dispute the message. i just said that it was a boring read. if everyone's criticism of me was just my writing (and there's plenty to criticize) that would be fine. but damn, i can handle myself in a political debate. but what exactly was it that i said that drew all that? the fact that the author of the article bores me? boo hoo, if a published writer can't stand up to that kind of criticism, he won;t go far.
Liathach
United Kingdom
December 2008
MAR 24, 2009 02:48 AM