It's not about the money, Mr. President

[DirkGently]

In listening to highlights of last night's speech, what stood out to me most was the President's emphasis on the idea that BP's environmental holocaust will be smoothed over with money. Money for fisherman. Money for Lousiana. Getting and taking money from BP. An "escrow account" for victims. I know, Obama also touched on the importance of the environment and the needs of future generations, here and there, which was good. But part of the reason I think the speech left some of us limp was this focus on not a solution, and not any kind of change in the way we must do things going forward, but simply on the billions and billions of barrels of MONEY that will be distributed to ostensibly right this wrong.

But isn't this precisely the wrong paradigm to talk about an issue like this one -- the destruction of the environment by greedy, under-regulated corporations? Isn't this very mindset what led us to a place where a multi-billion dollar enterprise like BP is out in the pristine waters of the Gulf of Mexico, with a mile-deep rig, and a 40-yr-old recycled pamphlet so copy-pasted that it actually talks about protecting walruses of the coast of Florida for a disaster plan?

Sure, BP will pay. And pay. And pay. But as with Exxon, it's likely at the end of the day that destroying the Gulf of Mexico and poisoning untold millions of Americans with cancer-causing petroleum and toxic dispersants for, likely, generations to come if not actually FOREVER, will still turn out to be a good business decision. In fact, NOT spending the money on better emergency planning will probably turn out to have been a good business decision. Kind of like Ford's calculation that paying damages to a few dozen or a few hundred charred, disfigured, and dead victims of Pinto rear-end collision fires would be cheaper than actually ... fixing the Pinto.

As a nation and culture, we are inundated with this notion that everything -- every success and every failure -- can be reduced to dollars and cents and decimal points and stock figures and share prices. It's a false cost / benefit analysis that assumes that gain or loss of "wealth" in terms of simple cash is the only cost or benefit that matters, that everything boils down to profit and loss. It's a convenient shorthand, but it's also destructive, because it suggests, again, as it has been suggested for years in a billion different ways -- that if you have enough money, you can do anything want, hurt anyone, destroy anything.

Because, it is suggested, at the end of the day, you can just write a check, and all will be forgiven. In this case, we are told that a future of black, sticky beaches dead wildlife, and possibly, the literal end of wetlands in the Southeastern United States, or even the death of the Gulf itself, will be okay, because BP will buy what it broke. And instead of birds and fresh water and places to take our children to see and touch and smell the things that are most beautiful and essential to life -- we'll have ... money. Is $100 per Pelican fair? How much for a river -- a million ... a billion? It doesn't matter, because thanks to good business practices like not investing in disaster protcol or cleanup technology, BP has all the money it needs to "compensate" us for the loss of unique, irreplaceable natural wonders which, by the way, in addition to providing silly eco-hippie pleasures like peace and beauty and wildlife, also happen to be the source of a lot of our oxygen and fresh water.

But who needs those things, when we can have money instead. We can have money instead of everything. Instead of birds, instead of fish, instead of clean air and fresh water and swimming holes and parks and trees and grass and snakes and turtles -- instead of all of this, we can retire comfortably to our rows of stucco McMansions, and look at stunning high-resolution movies of all of these plants and animals and places that we USED to actually have on Blu-Ray disc, while the toxic goo that paid for it all coagulates slowly around us.

It's okay to pave paradise and put up a parking lot, because you can charge $4 a day.

Another thing we're discussing a lot lately is this notion of the personhood of the (and this is technical term) "fictitious legal entities" called corporations. Chief Justice Roberts was very concerned about the "Big Brother" type tyranny that might occur if we continued to stifle the "free speech" of these business entities by restricting their ability to pour millions into influencing our elections and our laws. They're not people, exactly, these "entites," but there are people inside them, somewhere, we are told, whose needs and interests must be addressed. And they have the most money, so it only makes sense that their voices should be the loudest. Even providing matching public funding for their opponents is unfair, we are told.

But happens when a "person" commits a crime? They might pay a fine, if the crime isn't too serious -- if no one is hurt and their conduct wasn't too egregious. But what about when a "person" kills? What is the "fine" for, say, killing the Gulf of Mexico? For poisoning generations of Americans? For destroying, possibly, millions of acres of ocean and beach and wetlands? Wouldn't a "person" go to jail for something like that? Or (gasp) possibly even put to death? Would we expect our leaders to furrow their brows and threaten to really, really, "fine" such a "person" some amount of money?

Or, is it possible that THIS time, we need to talk about the possibility that there IS NO AMOUNT OF MONEY that will fix this. No amount of money that justifies a risk like deep-water oil drilling. No amount of jobs. No amount of stock dividends. No number of barrels of economically useful black fluid that make it a reasonable tradeoff for our sealife and farmlands and parks and birds and animals and clean land and water and air -- for our actual LIVES and the things that make them worth living and cannot be measured in yet more sweaty wads of greasy, oil-soaked money?

It's not about the money, Mr. President.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's about the wildlife. But fish and dolphins, etc. don't vote. nt

[Laelth]

2. Well said.

This is one of the few downsides of having a lawyer as a President. Generally speaking, it's good to have a lawyer executing the laws of the country. Lawyers understand the system and know how it works. They also know how to make it work well.

But, the problem with lawyers is that the profession teaches them (us) that money fixes everything. And it doesn't. Courts of law hand out money judgments to injured victims. That's how they fix things. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that our President sees money as the primary way to fix this problem.

Bold initiatives are needed. Harsh punishment is needed. Heads need to roll. Obama needs to fire Ken Salazar and shake up his entire cabinet. BP needs criminal prosecution if not also nationalization of its American assets. Instead, we get the lawyer's solution--we'll pay for all the damage.

That was, quite simply, not enough.

:dem:

-Laelth

[nashville_brook]

10. damn -- your response was equally 'well said.'

this:

Bold initiatives are needed. Harsh punishment is needed. Heads need to roll. Obama needs to fire Ken Salazar and shake up his entire cabinet. BP needs criminal prosecution if not also nationalization of its American assets. Instead, we get the lawyer's solution--we'll pay for all the damage.

the only thing that will look like justice is to make sure this can never happen again. it's too late for the Gulf of Mexico, but maybe not for other areas threatened by this industry.

[AnArmyVeteran]

16. When the 5 oil CEOs were testifying before congress they should have been arrested

When they admitted they had no way to contain any spills and hadn't even thought of advancing oil cleaning technologies they should have all been arrested for criminal negligence. Each oil company regularly spills oil into the oceans and seas on our planet. They are all guilty. And it was obvious from their testimonies that they couldn't care less about what happens when their drilling destroys the environment or kills human beings.

If we made a law against sociopaths not one oil executive would be running free. They would all be behind bars instead of raping our planet and killing people.

[DirkGently]

26. Very astute. Life = $$$

... which is the problem. And Salazar ... ?!

[nashville_brook]

3. this really sums up the WTF feeling i had after the address last night -- $$ won't fix this.

this is my favorite 'graph:

Because, it is suggested, at the end of the day, you can just write a check, and all will be forgiven. In this case, we are told that a future of black, sticky beaches dead wildlife, and possibly, the literal end of wetlands in the Southeastern United States, or even the death of the Gulf itself, will be okay, because BP will buy what it broke. And instead of birds and fresh water and places to take our children to see and touch and smell the things that are most beautiful and essential to life -- we'll have ... money. Is $100 per Pelican fair? How much for a river -- a million ... a billion? It doesn't matter, because thanks to good business practices like not investing in disaster protcol or cleanup technology, BP has all the money it needs to "compensate" us for the loss of unique, irreplaceable natural wonders which, by the way, in addition to providing silly eco-hippie pleasures like peace and beauty and wildlife, also happen to be the source of a lot of our oxygen and fresh water.

[ProSense]

4. From the time the explosion happened, it was about the money.

The President cannot bring back the wildlife. So compensation, clean up, restoration and holding those responsible to account is what it's all about.

But happens when a "person" commits a crime? They might pay a fine, if the crime isn't too serious -- if no one is hurt and their conduct wasn't too egregious. But what about when a "person" kills? What is the "fine" for, say, killing the Gulf of Mexico? For poisoning generations of Americans? For destroying, possibly, millions of acres of ocean and beach and wetlands? Wouldn't a "person" go to jail for something like that? Or (gasp) possibly even put to death? Would we expect our leaders to furrow their brows and threaten to really, really, "fine" such a "person" some amount of money?

Sending them to jail will not bring the wildlife back either so even if someone is charged and convicted of a crime, in the case of the Gulf, it is about the money. BP must pay.

Also, are you suggesting that those responsible be put to death?

[Laelth]

6. I don't support the death penalty.

But prison time for those responsible? That I support wholeheartedly. I don't care whether imprisoning people will bring back the wildlife or not. Heads need to roll, metaphorically. People need to be put on notice that this kind of criminal behavior will lead to serious punishment. That's how we prevent a similar disaster from happening in the future.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DirkGently]

21. If corporations are "citizens" with civil rights, they should face the

corporate equivalent of the penalties we face for crimes, no? Again, not the main point, but a corporate "death penalty" would not include actual loss of human life -- although note -- BP's crime DID.

[defendandprotect]

35. Corporations are "citizens" who can't breathe and can't vote . . .

don't need public schools, medical care, shelter or clothing -- and don't have

birth certificates!

This last right wing Supreme Court deal is as phony as the 2nd amendment crap --

"right to bear arms" -- Oh, yes, send me an atomic bomb, please! --

and their 2000 job to put W in the White House!!

[nashville_brook]

7. power down the *defend obama* jets and put the strawman away.

some posts are simply posts -- some posts don't have a giant political agenda. some posts mourn and grieve. some simply try to recognize our new reality. this is one of those.

[ProSense]

9. It is about the money.

If the President was out there saying it isn't about the money, people would be ridiculing him for that.

[nashville_brook]

12. the "damned if you do/damned if you don't" theme isn't working for the president's PR efforts

it makes him out to be nothing but a political skirt chaser. a leader actually does things that people disagree with and then FIGHTS for them. period.

but, do continue with the whine and i'll be right back with some cheese.

[DirkGently]

22. Money is an adjunct, a substitute. It can and should be

distributed, but the policy-shaped hole the administration is talking around is that deep-water drilling must STOP.

What we have proven here is that the oil industry and its supporters have flatly lied about the safety of offshore drilling in general, and deep-water drilling in particular. Accidents WILL happen, and what we are seeing now is that there IS NO SOLUTION, other than attempting to pay damages which, while necessary -- let us be very clear here -- does not address the problem. Does not undo the damage. Is not an acceptable risk going forward.

We need to call on the administration to stop looking at this situation as a way, at most, to try to push a tepid energy policy through Congress. For one, it's not working. For another, the environmental issue is without precedent. We cannot tolerate the risk of this happening again next week, or next year, or 50 years from now. We cannot afford it, because all of the money and energy independence in the world is useless if we're all floating (with our money) on a sticky, stinking ball of uninhabitable goo.

To recall the notion of corporate "personhood," what would we actually do with an individual person who caused this much damage? At the very, very least, would we pull their license from engaging in the behavior that caused the destruction?

On the contrary, though, my impression, based on the President's words and the actions of the administration in continuing, as far as I know, to this very moment -- to grant record numbers of offshore oil leases -- is that we'll wait a week or a month, or six months, and start drilling again.

We simply can't do it. And we cannot buy off on yet another round of this felonious logic whereby some money is paid, and a few "bad apples" are located (or simply drafted) and duly scolded ... while nothing is done to prevent this happening again. Because the way we're headed, in a few months, or a few years, we will be told that we now have X regulation in place, or Y fine has been paid, so up goes the next rig. It's bullshit, and it's lethal bullshit, and we cannot have it.

[joeybee12]

11. Pathetic, isn't it...we can't care about wildlife because Obama doesn't...

...we can't say anything not officially approved by obama.

[suzie]

28. There appears to be absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada that Obama could do that

would be acceptable to a whole group of DUers.

Getting money for the people whose livelihoods have been destroyed?

No, huh uh, unacceptable.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

19. Corporate death should be as real as corporate "speech," no?

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that the question is not deliberately obtuse. Should we kill BP, the "entity" that did this?

Hell. Yes.

As for jail -- that is literally reasonable, because the level of negligence that killed the rig workers might well be criminal, and might be applicable to individual people -- although it still is not the point

The actual point here remains. As noted higher in the thread, money is what lawyers trade when you can't really fix things. That got lost somewhere along the way, and now a lot of people, including our President, are pretending that the solution here is simply to make sure BP pays enough money.

Gallingly, unbelievably, obscenely, they pretend this for ONE reason: They want to do it again.

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we are actually going to allow our country to contemplate more deep-water rigs, more inevitable spills, more environmental grotesquery -- so as not to interfere with what has become America's most sacred pursuit: making more and more and more money.

[nashville_brook]

46. this is the moment where we either turn to alternatives, or we don't -- this is the teachable moment

it's not asking too much to finally get serious about alternative when extracting oil has become impossible to do without massive, radical destruction. the old way just doesn't work anymore. it's become unthinkable.

[defendandprotect]

37. No -- the issue is capitalism vs Nature and our ability to survive on this planet --

THAT's the issue --

The core of capitalism is exploitation of nature and humans --

And the PROFIT is based on meaningless dollar bills and silver coins.

Try to plant a dollar bill -- try to eat it -- try to drink it --

and you'll realize how inane this system of capitalism is.

There is no replacement for nature --

Nature is all --

And we have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill --

[dgibby]

5. Great post!

Thank you!

K&R!

[Catherina]

8. Thank you. So well said n/t

[Child_Of_Isis]

13. Can you put a price on independence?

In all probability a lot of mom & pop tourist shops & restaurants will collapse due to the spill. How about the independent local fishing boats?

After the checks are spent, then what? They bow to the Corporate Masters for a paycheck.

[nashville_brook]

18. this is a very good point -- even for the apples-to-apples restitution...

you know, for economic hardships to people...there cannot be "making whole" entirely, b/c these businesses were all about independence -- you don't do charter fishing or a shrimp shack b/c you want to punch the clock for a corporate master. if the nature doesn't survive, the independence dies too.

[defendandprotect]

38. Great post ---

and you're touching on one of my greatest fears in this . . .

After the checks are spent, then what? They bow to the Corporate Masters for a paycheck.


When we live by this insane economic system of capitalism nothing can make sense.

And it's evermore of a downward spiral as they destroy more and more of nature and

anyone's independence.

They produce Global Warming and we end up cutting down huge chunks of great old trees overhanging

our town roads because the new stronger winds and more frequent and severe thunder storms are

tending to cause limbs to fall unexpectedly.

We actually had a young teenager at the high school killed a few years ago by a limb falling

off a tree when they were out at lunch time.

Right now as I watch crews cutting limbs and sometimes taking down whole trees, I can only think

that we are beginning to live the nightmare the right wing has created . . .

"We had to burn the village to save it!"


Truly frightening --




:)

[Child_Of_Isis]

44. Is this even capitalism? Or is it coporatism?

Capitalism is supposed to nurtures the mom & pop, the locals, & independence.

Corporatism squashes it... as it has no control over a people who are autonomous & sovereign. An autonomous & sovereign people absolutely will not allow death to their community & environment in the name of profit.

[defendandprotect]

45. It's capitalism . . .

Founders actually feared the power of capital --

Without it, there's no corporatism which is fascism as it takes control of government --

and, as we can see, of our elections and political parties.

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --


The oil industry -- ExxonMobil predominately -- have been propagandizing the American public

will lies about global warming for decades -- 60 years! -- because we began to find out

about GW in the late 1950's -- just as we began to look at the chemical soup we were creating,

thanks to Rachel Carson. And they've been buying government and elected officials.

Pretty tough now for the public to catch up, figure out what's gone down and try to correct it!!

Look how quickly this tragedy in the Gulf happened --

Obama is naive -- at best -- underestimating the corruption of all parts of government by

corporations -- and, sadly, in my view, himself favoring corporations.

Wham -- and here we are!

:)


And just a PS on capitalism/corporatism . . .

Capitalism was invented by the Vatican when Feudalism was no longer sufficient to run its
Papal States --

Firstly, "fascism" is a specific 20th century refinement of despotism and a subgroup thereof. The "ideal type" of fascism, in Weberian terms, is Italian.
The antecedents of fascism are in Catholic corporatism
and much of the ideological thrust is contained in the Futurist Manifesto, which calls for "action" at the expense of reason. Mussolini lays out the fascist vision in "The Corporate State."



Patriarchy --
and its underpinning, Organized Patriarchal Religion --
And Capitalism --

The Unholy Trinity of destruction!

[XemaSab]

14. Very well put

:thumbsup:

[Poll_Blind]

15. +1 If a work of art can be priceless, why can't the whole damned Gulf?

Thank you for posting that!

PB

[defendandprotect]

39. Great point . . .

[leftstreet]

17. K&R

Excellent post

[bluethruandthru]

20. Excellent Post!

While the economic impact of this undersea volcano of oil will be staggering...the real tragedy of this is the destruction of untold numbers of animals, birds, fish, habitats, etc. It's nowhere near close to being stopped, and every day the situation becomes more unimaginable. That's the real loss...and we haven't even begun to calculate it.

[LynneSin]

23. I'm sure that's what all those fishermen who earn a living from the waters of the Gulf are thinking

:eyes:

[DirkGently]

24. You don't think so?

Have you heard the soundbite from the fisherman asking, repeatedly (and with no response) how BP will replace his way of life?

People will take the money because they need it. And BP should pay it. What doesn't compute is that this will "fix" things.

If it could, then why not do it again? An oil company will gladly pay a few billion here and there to keep destroying our coastlines. The logic that's being pushed is that kind of "doing business" is fine.

Kill a few workers, annihilate a few wetlands, destroy a few hundred miles of pristine beach. And just get out your checkbook, like Led Zep leaving a Holiday Inn. All will be forgiven.

That's the logic we are being asked to accept. Some of us are asking if it's a logic we can afford.

[dionysus]

30. "An oil company will gladly pay a few billion here and there to keep destroying our coastlines."

no, they won't. they don't enjoy parting with billions, on top of the billions of fines and tens of billions of lost share value.

this is going most likely bankrupt BP, and they deserve it. but your OP is moronic, and that's being charitable.

[DirkGently]

31. Of course they will. And I think the cheap name-calling

says all we need to know about the depth of your analysis. Exxon, it may be noted, is doing splendidly after blithely cutting it's check for the Valdez. Today, Obama said that BP is a vibrant, valuable company with miles to go before it sleeps.

[suzie]

27. +1,000,000

[Cetacea]

25. K&R

Agreed.

[scarletwoman]

32. Excellent, thought-provoking post.

Thank you for posting this.

sw

[defendandprotect]

33. Late K&R -- Somehow Americans don't seem to understand how useless a dollar bill is...

and how essential Nature is --

Nature is all --

[defendandprotect]

34. I was tuned in last night and given the opening comments, I tuned out quickly ....

[DirkGently]

41. I liked Rachel's substitute "dream speech" last night

She reiterated Obama's stronger points, and added the bit about stopping offshore drilling that I think a lot of us wanted badly to hear.

[Richard Steele]

36. K&R

[amborin]

40. K&R

[FLPanhandle]

42. Excellent!

Needs to be on every letter to the editor page

[loudsue]

43. I wish we could all get our shit together & send this to POTUS, and every member of the legislature

Both federal legislature and our individual state lawmakers. This post is one that resonates so completely with how many people, dems & non-insane repubs, are feeling right now.