I'm with you CJB, the problem is next week it could be Exxon, or Shell, or Burger King, or Victoria's Secret or maybe even Toyota - They are all in it to cover their booties (trying to avoid filter) Until they throw some of these CEO's and other top executives in jail this will always be the case. Right now they have nothing to lose - even some of the Enron guys walked away with money and no punishment!
Last Edit: May 21, 2010 7:24:14 GMT -5 by gregcrow
I'm certainly happy to see that everyone in this thread has determined criminal guilt and we have now moved on to the penalty phase!
It's good to see that nowhere has anyone bothered with the inconvenience of a trial. After all, we all know that anyone who believes in profits is guilty by virtue of those beliefs.
Actually, why bother with jail time? Why not simply conduct a public execution at halftime of the Super Bowl?
And the perfect choice for executioners would be the SEIU union thugs (members) - after all they have definitely established their credentials in their chosen art of the beat down! I'm sure they would be more than happy to graduate to conducting executions! Or have they already?
Yes, and OJs innocent also. I think you're missing the point doom, the point is not that they are guilty (Although, why the lies if they are innocent? ) - The point is that these executives who are guilty rarely end up doing any jail time, and when they do it's normally a slap on the wrist. Enron was actually an exception in that some of their execs actually went to jail. Unfortunately some others didn't - I have some friends who lost their life savings, jobs, everything because of criminal behavior in that case. I'm sorry if me thinking that those people belong in jail offends you.
At no time did I express any objection to appropriate punishment. My point was that there are several inconvenient steps that should preceed any such punishment. As long as our Constitution is still in effect (and I will admit that it does seem to be on life-support) those "inconvenient technicalities" would include investigation to determine the facts, determination if those facts warrant criminal prosecution, criminal trial and that criminal trial resulting in a verdict of guilt.
You, not I, are the one who seemed to bypass those "technicalities" by moving from the spill directly to punishment by stating "Until they throw some of these CEO's and other top executives in jail this will always be the case."
Of course, if my assumption that our Constitution has not yet been completely shredded is incorrect, then your process may be what our system has become. I, for one, prefer the American system which our founders designed rather than the one into which we seem to be falling.
BTW, OJ was never found to be innocent - he was found to be "not guilty" of criminal charges. Sorry, just another of those inconvenient technicalities.
Well, the funny thing is that I don't think we disagree all that much - more a matter of mis-communication - I don't know that there was anywhere on this thread that anyone advocated convicting people without a trial - again the original point was made that it seems there has been some deception on the part of some BP executives. This would lead a logical person to surmise that they had something to hide. The point is that the CEO's and higher executives often hide behind the excuse that they did not know what was going on below them - In BP's case blaming contractors. They take no responsibility for what appears to be negligent behavior. Sometimes it is hard to prosecute, because it's not clear what laws were actually broken. I contend that something needs to be done to correct this. There was a case against Texaco a number of years ago where the accusers had audio tape of top executives plotting to make sure that several minority candidates did not get promotions. The language they used made it hard to deny what they were up to. It cost Texaco, the corporation, a fortune. It did not cost those executives one dime, and they did not spend a day in jail. The only thing I'm saying is that there is something wrong with that.
What prompted me to start this thread was the feeling I needed to vomit after watching some "suit" from BP on Good Morning America (with oil spewing from the depths of the gulf as a backdrop) constantly try to deflect and deny responsibility for this mess.
How much money does BP pay that clown to be so arrogant as families don't even have the bodies of their loved ones to bury and the oil continues to destroy the gulfs ecosystem?
Now we find out that BP has had a history of compromising safety and cutting corners. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out it was for the sake of increasing profits.
Unfortunately, in todays world, nice guys finish last and corporate greed now trumps old fashioned business ethics.
Not accusing anyone of being guilty. I just think BP needs to step up to the plate and be willing to take their fair share of responsibility. Something that IMO hasn't happened just yet.
At no time did I express any objection to appropriate punishment. My point was that there are several inconvenient steps that should preceed any such punishment. As long as our Constitution is still in effect (and I will admit that it does seem to be on life-support) those "inconvenient technicalities" would include investigation to determine the facts, determination if those facts warrant criminal prosecution, criminal trial and that criminal trial resulting in a verdict of guilt.
You, not I, are the one who seemed to bypass those "technicalities" by moving from the spill directly to punishment by stating "Until they throw some of these CEO's and other top executives in jail this will always be the case."
Of course, if my assumption that our Constitution has not yet been completely shredded is incorrect, then your process may be what our system has become. I, for one, prefer the American system which our founders designed rather than the one into which we seem to be falling.
BTW, OJ was never found to be innocent - he was found to be "not guilty" of criminal charges. Sorry, just another of those inconvenient technicalities.
Some inconvenient facts which might be helpful in solving the problem - guilt or innocence later.
BP insists, and continues to insist, that oil is entering the gulf at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day. Such is the premise of their problem solving. Independent scientists and engineers have determined that the flow is 50,000 barrels a day.
In a London Guardian interview Tony Hayward, BP President, stated that given the size of the Gulf, “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume”.
That is hardly the stuff that grasps the magnitude of problem, and it indicates a CEO who is far more concerned with managing the message than he is with defining the problem so that appropriate resources can be deployed in its solution.
I recall a similar "minimal" response from London to an equally catastrophic event that continued through 1845, 1846, and 1847. These guys need to buck up, face the gravity of gulf spill, and get it solved.
CJB...Althought I agree with most of your thoughts......It would be naive to think that corporate greed, cutting corners and increasing profits is something new.... A look at the history of tycoons past (J.P.Morgan, Ford, Carnagie,) etc would dispel the notion of old fashion business ethics....To wish it were not so, defies reallity, and is a pie in the sky attitude.....To destroy that initiative would surely lead to deterioration of all the good products and life style we know today and in the future ...If we reach the point (recently recommended) that a certain amount of profit is enough, then we will again destroy initiative along with the capitalism system that has made us the greastest nation ever.......Just the Oldtimers view of the system (with its faults) that has brought him a lifetime of its fruits......
