Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Passive Solar Design Overview – Part 1
- Radical Retrenchment - A Reference Model
- TOD:Campfire RSS feed
TOD:Europe
- Energy Policy: SER-2 [01] Introduction
- The Russian Bear?
- The Permanent Oil Crisis Conference in Amsterdam, January 21 & 22, 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 9th January 2009
- 2009: Predictions for Australia
- The Bullroarer - Tuesday 6th January 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Heading Out
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The CEOs, and Heads of State like most any man or woman, are a mix of good and evil, wise and foolish, and lucky and unlucky, just like any OTHER human being.
The reason so much attention gets focused their way is because every action they make gets magnified in importance because of their position but what many seem to forget is that just because they have moved into a position of power doesn't make them super-human.
A prime example of a man who I think is being crucified far beyond what is needed, or even permitted by law is Ken Lay. Did he do some stupid and corrupt things? Given the evidence it certainly looks so. Did he also do some good and benevolent things, yes he did. He was very civic minded, and also gave lots to Houston local charities churches and programs. He was a blend of good and bad traits like most human beings, but the only thing you will ever hear about are the bad. Its unfortunate because despite his mistakes, he did have many positive impacts as well.
What's worse, is the desire for blood is rabid enough, that post-mortem, there is an attempt to re-write law in order to continue a prosecution against him. He's dead. By law that means there is no case, and as far as his involvement in things it should be buried along with him. But people feel so cheated out of their revenge, they are willing to sacrifice a major principle of our justice system, the right of the accused to be present, in order to get at him.
This is what blanket blaming leads too. Irrational and seething anger, to the point where it blinds people to very evils they are committing to counter whatever it is they are angry at. If you got a problem with the way something is being handled then try to be specific.
Personally I support the war in Iraq, I think it was a needed action(regardless if 9/11 had happened), I think the ideals set forth by Bush at its inception were good ones, and I think our troops are doing a pretty bang up job considering the uphill battle they seem to be caught in. My criticisms of the war have more to do with our policy makers in how we are to go about the mission(that includes Bush and crew). And when I try to explain my position to people about the war, I try to frame it in a manner that directs my frustration at the portion of the war machinery I find faulty. But I don't say, I hate the whole war, or support the whole war as a blanket statement.
Admittedly I'm not perfect about this approach on every subject, and its something that probably has to be re-trained in the way we think. By human nature we divied and classify things, the problem is sometimes we don't divied and classify into sufficient detail and that is where the mistakes in our inputs end up resulting in the mistakes in our conclusions. Detail and precision are everything when trying to correctly analyze problems.
Lots of people say the world is a series of shades of grey. I've come to the conclusion that if grey is being seen, then chances are the focus isn't detailed enough. Chances are that grey is actually a bunch of blacks and whites if one were to bother focusing on the pixelation of the issue.
PS: if RR did get mugged for merely being part of the oil industry would you still feel the same way about blanket blaming?
Ouch!
I suppose you are disappointed, are you?
If not, no need to reply.
I you are disappointed can you tell us what you expected and what made you think that your expectations were realistic?
Further while Saddam was somewhat insane, his boys who stood to ascend to the throne so to speak were even nuttier, and dealing with Iraq during the rule of the evil we knew I think was more advantagous, than dealing with Iraq during the rule of the evil we didn't know. And Saddam was getting up there in years.
At the time, and given the intelligence provided I thought the case for WMDs was sufficient, especially as I was watching the UN become the laughing stock of the world because it lacked the teeth needed to enforce its own resolutions (not just the ones on WMDs but also the ones on humanitarian, and treaty clauses from Gulf War 1, and the internal corrupt oil for food programs). Essentially the lead up to Iraq, and then outcry of the UN against the US led coalition sealed the UN as just another League of Nations in my book.
But back to Iraq. My initial expectations were pretty much fully met with the initial offensive. A crushing roll over within a few weeks of operations. The subsequent rebuilding phase is where I think things are being botched, and where I think by our actions we have emboldened Islamic extremists and in the end given the appearance of a paper tiger(whether that appearance is true or not is irrelevant).
With the militants uprising around Iraq, and the soft response to those uprisings, the extremist Muslim mind sees in us a people unwilling to wage war to its fullest, and so as a result they now think that if they wage war more fully than us, they will win. A philosophy that I worry may end up proving true.
My first opinion on how to handle Iraq's rebuilding differently would've been to split the country into its 3 ethnic portions and help each portion form their own constitutional democracy/republic (a variation of Sen. Biden's plan if I remember correctly). This would've provided a useful tool to the Bush administration as it would've allowed them to first avoid rival power grabbing(and subsequent violence) from the sects, and further provide three examples of varying states of success and failure, and use those examples for both public relations to the American people and the world, and for a prod to those sectarian portions who were failing.
This would've also had the side benefit in that the Kurdish province(which had already hashed out a fairly good start to a working government ,with the beginnings of a basic constitution, during the no-fly zone period) could be used as a tool against Iran who controls several Kurdish dominated provinces and if properly supported, the US and Kurds could be doing to Iran, what Iran and the Shiites are doing to Iraq and the US now(a tool which might have helped to diffuse the current Iranian nuclear situation, or at least provided us another bargaining chip).
The other advantage in breaking up Iraq would've been a prevention of the entirety of Iraq falling into civil war as it risks currently doing. If the Kurds, or Sunnis or Shiites had regional infighting in their portions I think the containment of that infighting would've been more easily handled.
Further, I think the use of force and reward would've been more dynamic in a split portioned Iraq. In a province say like Falluja(sp?) where uprising had been fierce, a response of cordoning off the city, providing a 48 hour time table for civilians to leave(with the subsequent searching of weapons on those leaving), followed by a barrage of C130 gunships putting one bullet every square foot in the city(something that looks absolutely amazing in time lapsed photogrpahy), and therefore killing any person left inside would've removed the paper tiger the Muslims think they see now. In otherwords the Muslims respect and fear strength, so show them American strength, but with the 48 hour evacuation we maintain our humanitarian obligations by allowing civilians to get out of the way.
In reverse, for those provinces which showed stability, peace and progress, rewards of additional aid and infrastructure would provide further encouragement to work with the US. Essentially a re-enforcement of the "We can be your best friend or worst enemy" image.
Basically the lack of willingness to use overwhelming force and unequivically win peace through victory, combined with the lack of forsight in forcing 3 hostile factions to come together in one government not being ruled by tyrannical force is my problem with the administration of this war. Two strategic policy mistakes in my opinion, which may cost us the whole shebang.
However, invasion and occupation I don't think was evaluated as to the risks involved with it.
Your idea to level villages that have uprising, after humanitarianly warning the citizens might have some effect, however I'm not sure in practice it would be possible to carry it out in a humanitarian way since the bad guys would probably force the civilian population to stay and be slaughtered by our gunships through force, coercion etc. But, it would do something and such tactics are what have been used by other occupations. The Romans, I have been told would - if even one Roman soldier was killed would burn the village, sow the fields with salt and execute every adult male (age 12+ ?) and sell the women and children into slavery. Successful occupations are brutal and not really something i think most Americans want to be in the practice of.
One of the problems I think exists with modern warfare (that is war after WWII), is that the countries who are striving to keep peace amongst civilizations have tried to bring civilization to war. War by its definition is a most uncivilized practice.
Tyrants and dictators have become less and less afraid of becoming aggressors and brutal killers. I think a lot of this is because they know the UN, and those nations which give the UN its muscle(as little as that is) won't fully prosecute a war to its most terrible conclusions. They hide behind the very rules of war we(Europe and the US) formed after WWII to try and limit civilian casualties. This puts civilians directly in the path of harm as they become human shields.
I sometimes wonder if more civilians would be spared if we just made it a point to all aggressors that if they violate the rules of war, then we toss them also, and show true unrestrained destruction upon them and their armies. Problem right now is we keep our hands tied while they fire Anti-Aircraft guns beside homes, or take up sniper positions from inside family's houses, or launch rockets from beside a UN watchpost, or suicide bomb markets, and disco studios.
They know we will play by the rules even if they don't. And in their minds us staying by the rules is not a sign of strength and humanitarian restraint(as we view it), it is viewed as weakness, and an exploit in our armor. And they will keep picking out at that chink in our armor until they finally cause us to seriously bleed or die from it.
Well, we've done it before in Dresden and Hiroshima. I didn't approve of those either. I do believe in the protective use of force however. Just not the current administration's interpretation of it.
They know we will play by the rules even if they don't.
Yeah. Like Abu Ghraib. Like Guantanamo. (both violations of the Geneva Convention). Like cluster bombs. Like Falujah. I wish we did play by the rules rather than pretending to.
As for Abu Graib, the people who committed those acts are being punished. The system works, and we kept ourselves accountable. If they had been ignored, then I would say the US failed its obligations.
As for Guantanamo, that subject is being hashed out right now in the legislature and courts. Again the system is in the process of working it out. It may be slow, and it may be imperfect but at least we have processes and law that we at least try to follow. I doubt the terrorists give a flying flip about law.
Cluster Bombs, I don't think are illegal. They are disdained and there is now fresh criticism of their use because of the Isreali-Lebanon situation, but technically I don't think any laws broken. If I'm wrong please feel free to point out the section in international law banning their use. I'm always up for learning something new for the day.
Falujah? Please elaborate what greivance you are trying to insinuate here. Preferably back it up with a reference so I can read for myself and come to some conclusions. Falujah is in the news a lot, so just stating the place doesn't specify an incident.
Anyhow I'm off to go chill out for the evening. SQL and the poorly maintained database I was converting has fried me out.
Oh Really? Care to prove that point.
Other than some low level scapegoats, show us one senior ranking civilian that has been tried and convicted for war crimes relating to AG.
I'll keep it exclusive. Just me and you. If you need some help, I'll let you have Angry Chimp and AlistairC. Trust me, you will need them, they are good. I'll take Jack Greene to fact-check me. Other than that, I think I can prove myself.
Here. Read Bing West's article in latest Altantic Monthly. (C'mon fishies, fall for the bait, fall for the bait).
Fail to prosecute those who made the infractions and we are the worst human rights violators in the world!
Prosecute them, and it turns out that they are just scapegoats for the super secret shadow government!
It would be inconceivable to think that maybe, just maybe, we happened to have a collection of psychotic bored off their ass nitwit MPs who thought it might be fun to put these prisoners through some good old fashion college hazing, and have a real life edition of Jackass using Iraqi prisoners. And by the way before it gets misconstrued, thats not an excuse for their behavior, its an indictment of it, and of the idiocy the American Public has for watching sadistic morons on TV and thinking its "cool".
Good Lord man, put down the Kool Aid!
See anything familiar? C'mon let's start being friends again. It's so much easier that way. Otherwise, I'll just keep on pretending. I'm serious. Maybe we need Hezbollah to broker the cease fire.
It does not matter what YOU think (we kept ourselves accountable), what matters is what THEY think.
No "mind control" available to you in muslim countries, ol'Rupert doesn't own the MSM over there.
Don't forget to apply for the Nobel Prize!
Before WWII, bombing civilian targets was seen as barbaric. By the end of the war, both sides were doing it. Topped off with our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Korea. Vietnam. Chechnya. Kosovo. Iraq 2003. (and especially) Lebanon 2006. Have really honed our(the world's) thinking on this one.
I guess my point is that "bombing civilian targets" has always been seen as barbaric. Just to what extent? And what does it mean about "us"(again, the world). I think these are more important issues.
What do the Chinese think?
So you expected "the plan" to be true to the public statements, "building democracy"?
My first opinion on how to handle Iraq's rebuilding differently would've been to split the country into its 3 ethnic portions
You had your OWN plan!
And you expected TPTB to be aware of it and act accordingly?
In otherwords the Muslims respect and fear strength, so show them American strength, but with the 48 hour evacuation we maintain our humanitarian obligations by allowing civilians to get out of the way.
You think that the "insurgents" would have been stupid enough NOT TO EVACUATE along with the civilians?
Actually this is what they mostly did except for a few willing "martyrs" meant to take revenge.
It is true that "[Arabs] (NOT Muslims) respect and fear strength" but they are also tribalists keen on revenge and vendetta.
Once you have killed/wounded even ONE tribesman then you cannot get rid of the tribe short of blood money or ethnic cleansing.
Do you condone ethnic cleansing?
Would you have your tax dollars thrown at the families of the "nasty insurgents"?
This happened BTW, another "lack of teeth"...
In reverse, for those provinces which showed stability, peace and progress, rewards of additional aid and infrastructure would provide further encouragement to work with the US.
With Haliburton and likewise gobbling up 90% of the reconstruction budgets on "security & misc. expenses" and achieving less than 10% of the goals?
"We can be your best friend or worst enemy"
I guess Iraqis noticed mostly the "worst enemy" (Warning, GRUESOME)
Basically the lack of willingness to use overwhelming force
How do you use "overwhelming force" against IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)?
If there were a Supidity Nobel Prize you will be the FIRST nominee!
P.S. To avoid any misunderstanding let me remind you that I am strongly anti-islamic.
First of all, no need to be nasty. You asked for my opinion and I gave it honestly. I don't just dismiss and call names at the people who auto-react in an anti-Iraq tirade. I listen to their arguments, if they have any and either refute or consider them. It is in fact my open mindedness to view both sides of the situation which has led me to my current position of the war was needed, but badly prosecuted.
Most "pro-war" individuals I've met have almost no criticism for the current execution and likewise most Anti-war individuals refuse to even consider that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with either by war or some other means. Both sides in their extremes are putting the plugs in their ears and refusing to see either the issue that Iraq originally represented before the war, or the problems our current handling of the war is causing.
So give me some credit in that I'm not toeing the Bush line and being a Yes man to the administration's every move.
I've never claimed to have all the answers, and while I've given the Iraq situation some thought, I'm neither a professional General nor a politician(President or Congressman) with better information gathering abilities and advisors. I'm simply a citizen who is looking at the situation in Iraq, seeing a problem and thinking perhaps that a different approach may have been better.
<quote>You had your OWN plan!
And you expected TPTB to be aware of it and act accordingly? </quote>
Not saying my approach is perfect, or even refined, just that it was another option that was mentioned and debated (Sen. Biden like I said brought it up), and it was dismissed by Rumsfeld in a press conference when a reporter asked about the option. So the administration obviously had heard about the plan but chose against it. I don't know their reasons for choosing against it, but I do have to wonder why they would throw away the Kurdish attempt at self-government during the no-fly period, and the choice not to use a divide and conquer approach to handling Ethnically hostile factions during the rebuilding phase. Especially since this scenario in many ways is similar to the former Yugoslavia and subsequent Kosovo conflict. This observation is perhaps more in focus now that I see how events are unfolding in hindsight, but when I first heard of the idea being hashed out, I thought that it sounded good then.
<quote>You think that the "insurgents" would have been stupid enough NOT TO EVACUATE along with the civilians?
</quote>
They very well may have evacuated. But in the process how many leaders might we have snagged in the process of them coming out. Not saying this will net us every grunt stock soldier, but it would've flushed out leaders into our waiting blockade, and further, would've forced them to leave behind weapons and supplies they needed to prosecute their uprising.
Further if you took that action in conjunction with the 3 provinces solution, you would also provide a motivation for those Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni militias and their leaders to do something about the militants. If you were in the running to be a head of the new Shiite or Sunni state would you want your cities being razed? Or would you order your militias to find those militants before the US decided to raze another one. Not much use in ruling a nation if there is no infrastructure left.
Also with a tri-State approach, you remove many of the militants we are fighting now because now a lot of the militants are sectarian fighters. With the borders drawn an attack by militias across border would be easily tracable and punishable back to the province that committed it. Currently with one large State the US is tied because it can't risk alienating one faction or the other for fear of bringing the whole country in Civil War.
<quote>Once you have killed/wounded even ONE tribesman then you cannot get rid of the tribe short of blood money or ethnic cleansing</quote>
Active Ethnic cleansing no, but if their whole tribe wants to make itself a target by committing to a vendetta then its not going to bother me if they self select themselves out of the species.
<quote>With Haliburton and likewise gobbling up 90% of the reconstruction budgets on "security & misc. expenses" and achieving less than 10% of the goals?
</quote>
Pretty numbers... proof please? Preferably a listing of the projects they bid on in comparison with competitors, their current government assessment of completeness would be nice. I've asked for this before from someone who quoted similar numbers, and they never could. Or at least they never could find evidence that supported their outragous numbers. Not saying Haliburton is a bunch of angels, but I think their depiction in Iraq by the left is a little excessive.
<quote>How do you use "overwhelming force" against IEDs </quote>
You don't... you use it against the guys making them. That being said, again a tri-State solution would allow us to leverage local friendly militias in our efforts to monitor roads. Currently since the militias are hostile, or luke-warm at best, we can't employ them in our effort to subdue the more extremist militants, because we can't trust the militias because they are busy fighting each other.
Again, I'll admit I'm playing armchair General, but I've heard a lot of ideas on the current situation and seeing that we are running into problems I think looking at alternatives is a valuable excercise. Do I get or even want to make the calls... not really. I don't envy the position of the President or any of the people involved in rebuilding Iraq. Its a tough series of decisions and one that I think would heavily on anyone with any sort of decency.
I give you credit. The tactics you suggest are the things that should be discussed in congress before going into a war of conquest and occupation. The complete destruction of cities and its inhabitants may be an effective example-making response in an occupation to resisting forces. In the modern age, however the video images that such things generate would ferment worldwide opinion (as opposed to the much local effect that the Romans enjoyed). The question is do we want to take on that task? The debate was never had. That debate will probably not be had in this case.
However, at some point, when the Shiite military is trained and outfitted with modern weaponry and armor, the question will arise as to our response when they seek to put down Sunni opposition with brutal measures. Mabe Iran will lend a helping hand to them. I'm not taking sides, I just lament that these kinds of really forseeable eventualities were not seriously discussed in our democratic system before launching these events.
Whenever I encounter suspiciously devious arguments I usually think that the author has some concealed agenda.
But in your case all what you say is SO OUTSTANDINGLY STUPID that I don't believe it can be faked.
Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told.
Tell me, if you don't support a tri-state system what would you support instead?
If you don't think overwhelming force would help to put the militants down, then what would you do?
We are in Iraq now, and we need an exit strategy. So tell me, how would YOU get out of this problem?
You seem to have a lot of venom aimed at tearing people down. Now lets see if you have something constructive to add to the argument. You don't think we should be in Iraq, so tell me how do we get out in a timely manner and preferably in a manner that won't leave that country and possibly the region in chaos?
Like I said, I'm willing to listen to the arguments, and I'm even courteous enough to keep my tongue civil, a disability I'm overlooking in your case in an effort to get a glimpse into the mindset of an opposing viewpoint. So could you at least oblige my restraint and time spent on this argument with an alternative solution you think would work?
I'd love to learn more about the mindset you hold, that is if you even have one on this matter beyond a kneejerk reaction of anti-war, anti-war, anti-war. Convince me... Win me to your argument. Here's a hint though: name calling won't get you very far.
Of course I "have not offered up any other alternatives", I am not here to "save the world", just to save my ass and a few things I like or love.
I only mind about my business, why don't you mind about YOUR fucking business, why doesn't the US mind about THEIR fucking business?
Tell me, if you don't support a tri-state system what would you support instead?
Actually I am in favor of the tri-state system, but I am not "supporting" it, I don't try to meddle in others business when I have no (or not much) involvement in it.
If you don't think overwhelming force would help to put the militants down, then what would you do?
NOT MY FUCKING BUSINESS, once more!
We are in Iraq now, and we need an exit strategy. So tell me, how would YOU get out of this problem?
I am European not American so I will refer to Henry Kissingers' wisdom "too bad they can't both lose."
You seem to have a lot of venom aimed at tearing people down.
That's only a personal inclination, why do you mind?
I'd love to learn more about the mindset you hold, that is if you even have one on this matter beyond a kneejerk reaction of anti-war
I am not strictly "anti-war", in some cases you don't choose, but if you have the opportunity to choose (NOT to attack!) it is usually NOT COST EFFECTIVE politicians are underestimating costs by an order of magnitude.
Here's a hint though: name calling won't get you very far.
Here's another hint, ask yourself WHY what seems "obvious" to you seem UTTERLY STUPID to many others.
To this effect I suggest you read the link I provided already, here's another quote from it:
When people are bad at math, they know it, because they get the wrong answers on tests. But when people are bad at open-mindedness they don't know it. In fact they tend to think the opposite.
Italics nearly always are for quotations from the posts I am replying to.
All these gimmicks have a point, too bad they are resounding too much in your ebullient brain, it means they work OK for most "normal" people.
Do you know any jokes?
Sometimes, but you have to follow the links or read the whole post.
Or are you always this serious?
I am most often when I speak to criminals and bastards.
Please note that though I am making fun of you once in while I am not "attacking" you.
Isolation... That is your grand answer? Hope nobody has to depend on you for saving their lives. I'd hate for the last words they hear to be "It's not my business".
As for open mindedness... Who here is being the more close minded? The guy who responded to your question with an honest opinion and asked for a return dialogue, or the guy who has resorted to insults, and belittling. I think you sir are the topic of the very article you keep throwing in my face. Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle.
At any rate, I may be stupid, but at least I'm polite, and caring of my fellow human beings, and its a tag I would rather carry around any day of the week, over being calloused and self-interested.
Anyhow have fun being Island.
I would regard RR getting mugged as a highly unfortunate consequence of civil unrest caused by high gas prices. Just as I would regard two patriotic soldiers who happen to be on opposite sides of the front killing each other, unfortunate consequences of a war.
Perhaps those high gas prices were caused by price manipulation. Perhaps not. Perhaps that war wasn't warranted. Perhaps it was necessary. But among rational discourse (rather than muggings), we call out the entire organization by name, and if we find fault, try to find where responsibilities were ignored (somewhere to place blame) at the top, the ones making the decisions.
Take the statement - "BP appears to have neglected their pipelines." How would you render that sentence quickly, with your approach, while avoiding sentiments that might cause potential muggings of lower-level BP employees by people frustrated by high gas prices? Especially when it's not crystal clear where responsibility lies?
I think our problem lies here - Corporations are created explicitly as a mechanism to make it easier to avoid blame[to limit liability]. We're trying to judge them and deal with them on moral grounds as monolithic decision making entities. It's difficult, and might have collateral damage, but removing potential accountability entirely is not an option. We can only try(imperfectly) to channel wrath at the people who most deserve it.
Exactly. As my sister (a lawyer) says, corporations have all the rights of individuals, but none of the responsibilities.
And there is where I think our law has failed the people. The fact that corporations have more previlege than citizens is a gross injustice to our constitution. I think the idea of corporations is actually a good one, but the law handling them needs a WHOLE lot of refinement.
I think the fundemental problem with most of the first worlds corporations lies in our tax structure not the corp itself.
They are taxed quarterly on profits thus the drive for short term gains there is really nothing like a 401k for a company to allow it to put money into long term programs and growth.
Second is the shareholder structure of public companies.
There is little incentive for companies to invest in both people and projects over a long term.
I actually think one of the few benefits of a post peak world is that people and companies will focus much more on long term solutions and projects.
In the past for example research paid off very well for most big companies but after the low hanging fruit was picked in research dropped dramatically. If you look at it it really was because it became more difficult for the inventor in corporations to create new technology on there own and the time lines for sanctioned research began to extend to far beyond the quarterly profit model of most corporations.
I think this example highlights some of the fundamental problems intrinsic with the design of modern corporations.
Its fascinating to consider how many of our institutions that we take for granted are tied to the concept of a growth economy.
Now instead of following the subject one has to listen to hashed over arguments about Iraq.
It happens all the time, no cure in sight, not really a problem either...
Hijacking is about redirecting the thought process. Some of us are still perfecting the methods. Advertising, we have learned, is perfectly useless.
It is a crime to be "off topic." Never a crime to hijack. Hijacking can be extremely subtle. In Fact, it is THE most effective when nobody knows. I know because I am the master.
I can get you to go wherever I want.
Just sit back and enjoy.
HP.
"Invent."
You bet.
Pretext.
Ooooh. You get it now.
------
Oh boy.