This was in todays newspaper. Looks like a slanging match is brewing between the USA and the UK.

The sight of American rednecks stomping on Union Jacks in Louisiana, chanting "British scum" and calling us "oil pigs" - simply because one of the world's biggest multinationals has British in its title - almost had me crocheting John Bull underpants.

BP has cocked up bigtime and deserves all the billion-dollar lawsuits heading its way for causing an ecological nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico.

But it's an industrial accident and they happen. (Remember the 15,000 Indians that US firm Union Carbide killed in Bhopal?)

And there will be more of them as companies dig deeper for the Earth's last few trillion gallons of oil to satisfy our insatiable consumerist thirst.

For Americans to blame foreigners for birds washing up on their shore like Al Jolson impersonators takes their blind hypocrisy to dizzying heights.

Yanks are hooked on oil like heroin junkies.

They believe their constitution gives them the right to fill their gas-guzzling Chevvies up for a few dollars less. They view cheap oil as their birthright, consuming 25% of the world's supply despite having only 5% of its population.

They condemn climate change data as an updated communist manifesto.

They were happy to impose lax regulations on firms like BP, encouraging them to dig for oil one mile below the seabed in the hazardous Gulf of Mexico, as long as they piped it to their gas stations.

They turn a blind eye to West Africa where American firm Exxon is overseeing spillages on a worse scale and regularity than the Gulf disaster, because it supplies almost half their oil imports.

They were happy to send their sons to die in an illegal war in Aye-Rack if it meant getting their paws on the second-biggest supply of oil in the world.

Oil production is now flowing so bountifully in post-war Iraq, America's puppet government has just awarded the contract to its biggest oilfield at Rumaila.

And which firm has been given the biggest chunk of it because of its unparalleled expertise at bringing up black gold? Those Limey Oil Pigs BP.

Americans are in denial. About their own lifestyles, about their reliance on oil to fuel those lifestyles, about the increasing risks needed to extract it and about what it's doing to the planet.

Don't take the British out of BP and blame us.

You live by the black stuff, you die by the black stuff.

And now those beached birds in body bags threaten to outnumber beached whales in swimwear on your shores, maybe you'll start to realise it's YOU who is killing the world.

Col

Well that article certainly isn't biased in any way against Americans, now is it? :rolleyes:

Do you have a link to this article? I couldn't find anything online about people burning Union Jack flags. If they are, that's certainly sad. I get so sick of the redneck conservative "holier than though" agenda. I'm thinking of moving to the Northern US, at least they have all of their teeth. ;)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/06/03/u-s-oil-hypocrisy-makes-me-slick-115875-22305530/

Last time I saw the union flag getting burnt it was a bunch of celtic supporters in glasgow.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/06/03/u-s-oil-hypocrisy-makes-me-slick-115875-22305530/

Last time I saw the union flag getting burnt it was a bunch of celtic supporters in glasgow.

Ahh, it's a tabloid. I figured it was either a tabloid or some kind of satirical blog or something. I still can't figure where in this article or anywhere else it states that Americans are burning Union Jacks as the topic title states. I also can't find any articles online that point to "American rednecks stomping on Union Jacks in Louisiana."

Sounds to me like maybe it was something one or two ignorant rednecks might have been doing and someone caught wind of it. I'm sure most of America is not blaming the entire British Union for what BP is ultimately responsible for as a private organization. This Brian Reade guys seems as ignorant as the 1 or 2 who would do the flag stomping, if they even exist.

The style of writing seemed somewhat familiar.

Sounds to me like maybe it was something one or two ignorant rednecks might have been doing and someone caught wind of it. I'm sure most of America is not blaming the entire British Union for what BP is ultimately responsible for as a private organization. This Brian Reade guys seems as ignorant as the 1 or 2 who would do the flag stomping, if they even exist.

The journalist probably bought the rednecks a few crates of booze, some petrol, a box of matches and a union flag.

I don't think most rednecks knew that the B in BP stood for British until it was pointed out to them.

Some of the points of the "article" are apt. We do use too much oil. We are a nation of fatties. We do a lot of things wrong.

We're not all bad though. I do recognize a lot of these shortcommings of our country, and I think many others do as well, its just not something that is in the media. No one wants to go on record as saying their country messed up.

I don't think this will affect US-UK relations in anyway. I mean, you guys are still our puppets aren't you? :p

Some of the points of the article had no context for what the article was about either. It just seemed like some ignorant "journalist" writing down his personal opinions.

It just seemed like some ignorant "journalist"
ignorant journalist? Probably no journalist, just an ordinary schmuck with no clue. Anybody seems to be counted as a journalist these days if they so much as publish a blog.

I think one of the points he was trying to make was the fact that people in the US are blaming the British for this oil spill. Also they want BP to pay for the clean-up.

Yet when Union Carbide killed 15,000 Indian people in Bhopal, the compensation was very little, the US seemed to dismiss it as "just one of those things" - yet years later, people are still having deformed babies and suffering immense difficulties, the ground is still poisoned. It seems the US cares little for anyone except the US. (as usual)

The US law was that BP was responsible for only the first $50 million of the cost. Now I understand a retrospective law change makes BP responsible for all of it.

Obviously this post will be deleted, and I will be banned as I am the bad ColinEssex and dare to question the "great" USA.

Never mind, I have a copy.

Col

I think one of the points he was trying to make was the fact that people in the US are blaming the British for this oil spill. Also they want BP to pay for the clean-up.

Yet when Union Carbide killed 15,000 Indian people in Bhopal, the compensation was very little, the US seemed to dismiss it as "just one of those things" - yet years later, people are still having deformed babies and suffering immense difficulties, the ground is still poisoned. It seems the US cares little for anyone except the US. (as usual)

The US law was that BP was responsible for only the first $50 million of the cost. Now I understand a retrospective law change makes BP responsible for all of it.

Obviously this post will be deleted, and I will be banned as I am the bad ColinEssex and dare to question the "great" USA.

Never mind, I have a copy.

Col

There's nothing wrong with your post that would cause you to be banned. I actually find it quite refreshing as you are sticking to "facts" in a sense.

I have not once heard anyone blaming the British for the spill, and I live in Florida. I'm not sure how much of a "fact" that is. To me, he still seems to be some guy who took one or two redneck's opinions and slapped them down as the opinion of all of the U.S.. That's not the case at all.

I also don't hear much about people thinking BP should be responsible for EVERYTHING. Now, they are definitely responsible for the cause, but a clean-up of this magnitude should be the responsibility of everyone, not just BP, or the U.S., as the magnitude will affect everyone who shares this Earth, including Britian.

I saw a report earlier that said they don't think the oil spill will be completely stopped until December based on projected numbers. This would allow 4 Million barrels to spill into the ocean. That sounds like something EVERYONE on this Earth should be concerned about, not just BP or the USA.

I think one of the points he was trying to make was the fact that people in the US are blaming the British for this oil spill.

I haven't heard anyone blaming the British as a whole. I've heard a lot of blame going around and finger pointing between British Petroleum and TransOcean, the owners of the rig, but that's about it. Like Vass said though, everyone should be concerned and partly responsible for the cleanup. It's going to affect everyone. :(

There is talk that it should reach the Atlantic sooner rather than later too, which would put it at my beach. :( I'm all for helping in whatever way I can.

Ahh, it's a tabloid. I figured it was either a tabloid or some kind of satirical blog or something. I still can't figure where in this article or anywhere else it states that Americans are burning Union Jacks as the topic title states. I also can't find any articles online that point to "American rednecks stomping on Union Jacks in Louisiana."

Sounds to me like maybe it was something one or two ignorant rednecks might have been doing and someone caught wind of it. I'm sure most of America is not blaming the entire British Union for what BP is ultimately responsible for as a private organization. This Brian Reade guys seems as ignorant as the 1 or 2 who would do the flag stomping, if they even exist.
The article was also written in an opinion column, by someone best known as a sports writer. Hardly reliable journalism.

I'm not saying it didn't happen - the US is a damn large place and every country has its share of idiots, after all - but where is the actual credible report that this event occurred, as opposed to just this writer saying that he doesn't like it. Is it all over the British media? Possibly, as I don't get to see that any more.

I've tried searching for 'Louisiana UK Flag Burning' on the BBC site and it found an article about the spill but the only mention of a flag was the one Greenpeace had at BP headquarters. If it's big enough news for this person to comment on, shouldn't the BBC be aware of it?

Google fared no better. Of the first 20 sites located, the only one that mentions it is this forum.

I don't have time to look through more, but I'm willing to accept that there may be a credible source somewhere. Anyone have any links?

I don't have time to look through more, but I'm willing to accept that there may be a credible source somewhere. Anyone have any links?

A credible journalist would provide references to the material that their opinions are based on. Without them the reader is unable to judge whether the writer's opinions are well grounded.

I'd say given the nature of the publication, it's all quite deliberately inflammatory.

A credible journalist would provide references to the material that their opinions are based on. Without them the reader is unable to judge whether the writer's opinions are well grounded.

I'd say given the nature of the publication, it's all quite deliberately inflammatory.
That last sentence goes without saying :D. I was,however, surprised to see he wrote for The Mirror and not The Express (a paper whose dream headline somebody once described as 'Illegal immigrants with AIDS cause drop in house prices').

I was just wondering if he was trying to wind people up over something that had been widely reported or not.

I was just wondering if he was trying to wind people up over something that had been widely reported or not.

I think the lack of references in the article itself answers that one :p

If it is any consolation, that story is getting no coverage here across the pond. Most people who think realize that the multinational corporations are as much "British" or "American" as the air we commonly breath.

I'm pretty sure my retirement plan includes some shares of oil barons such as BP... I guess I am partially to blame. ;)

Also, not to quibble over a $25MM, but I think the max fine to oils spills is $75MM, and if this is true ( http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ ) that number should be more like $85MM now... based on some loose thinking about Exxon Valdez spill in 1989).

It also seems that, based on this "...Exxon Valdez would ironically cost Exxon about $1.28 billion dollars to clean up." - and that was "only" 10MM gallons of crude. (http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/valdez.htm)

The whole thing sucks.

Lets not get too offended - we know the real target of the protest - no matter how clumsily its done.


Fake offense. If you choose to be offended - you can be all the time.

I knew he wasn't a real journalist, hence the use of quotations. I too couldn't find anything online through Google, BBC, or any other news platform I could search from the UK that described what he was stating happening and certainly nothing about flag burning as mentioned in the topic title (it's not even mentioned in the "article").

Like I said though, the mere idea that Americans, or at least the majority of us, are blaming the British is just ridiculous. I don't even hear much outcry blaming BP. I think most of us are more concerned about getting it fixed and the cleanup efforts that are required and what we can do to help.

Like I said though, the mere idea that Americans, or at least the majority of us, are blaming the British is just ridiculous. I don't even hear much outcry blaming BP. I think most of us are more concerned about getting it fixed and the cleanup efforts that are required and what we can do to help.

My husband has an aunt and uncle that live down in the peninsula, around the Clearwater/Largo area. I was wondering if it would make its way down there eventually or not? :(

My husband has an aunt and uncle that live down in the peninsula, around the Clearwater/Largo area. I was wondering if it would make its way down there eventually or not? :(

The scientists are talking about it moving around the entire coast of Florida and up the Atlantic coast. :(

http://www.news4jax.com/news/23781731/detail.html

Of all of the interesting and tragic news available about the destruction of North Americas most important fisheries (50% of the US annual yield), Col choose this one to relate to us.

And once again Col you have your facts a little messed up.

Not one person that I have heard about has made this about the ugly British, and only someone with an extremely small mind would use a tragedy like this to cast disparagement on a group of people.

Yes the government has entertained the possibility of upping the liability, but there has not been a cap on the environmental cleanup cost. The 75 m is for ancillary cost incurred by fishermen and local communities.


Just because you live little on a puny little island where driving places is less necessary, that doesn’t mean the entire planet should live as you do.

We all need oil, we are all going to pay a price for this environmental disaster, but the people who profit the most should pay the most, whether it was PB, Shell, Exxon Mobile, or any other company.

The big issue here is how to stay alert in the future, it has been 31 years since there was a blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, many people fell asleep at the wheel, many in government and many more in the oil industry.

Of all of the interesting and tragic news available about the destruction of North Americas most important fisheries (50% of the US annual yield), Col choose this one to relate to us.

And once again Col you have your facts a little messed up.

Not one person that I have heard about has made this about the ugly British, and only someone with an extremely small mind would use a tragedy like this to cast disparagement on a group of people.

Yes the government has entertained the possibility of upping the liability, but there has not been a cap on the environmental cleanup cost. The 75 m is for ancillary cost incurred by fishermen and local communities.



Just because you live little on a puny little island .....
I believe you may have had the moral high ground up until this point.;)

And once again Col you have your facts a little messed up

All I did was to post a copy from a writer who writes for a large selling newspaper. How can I mess that up? I don't follow your logic if you have any.

It's interesting that nobody from the USA dares to comment on the 15,000 people killed by Union Carbide and the lack of compensation paid to the destroyed Indian populace of Bhopal.

Maybe it didn't make the US media at the time so nobody knows about it.

Col

Just as a rider to the main story - there are British people burning US flags outside Liverpool football club, I understand in protest at the crap American owners of the club.
Mind you, they are Northern and have little else to do other than draw their dole money.
Actually, I'm surprised you can buy a US flag in Liverpool, unless they are specially imported for the barbecue.

So all's fair in love and war I suppose.


Col

All I did was to post a copy from a writer who writes for a large selling newspaper. How can I mess that up? I don't follow your logic if you have any.

It's interesting that nobody from the USA dares to comment on the 15,000 people killed by Union Carbide and the lack of compensation paid to the destroyed Indian populace of Bhopal.

Maybe it didn't make the US media at the time so nobody knows about it.

Col

You're talking about something that happened while I was a toddler. I wasn't exactly interested in the news at the time, so can't really comment on how media was portrayed. I do know that it's not just the people from the USA who didn't comment about it in this thread. No one did, except you Col.

Just as a rider to the main story - there are British people burning US flags outside Liverpool football club, I understand in protest at the crap American owners of the club.
Mind you, they are Northern and have little else to do other than draw their dole money.
Actually, I'm surprised you can buy a US flag in Liverpool, unless they are specially imported for the barbecue.

So all's fair in love and war I suppose.


Col

It's also interesting that you won't respond to the statements that there seem to be no articles that support British flags being burned as a result of the oil spill. Not even the one you quoted in your original message states this.

I guess this was based on nothing?

It's interesting that nobody from the USA dares to comment on the 15,000 people killed by Union Carbide and the lack of compensation paid to the destroyed Indian populace of Bhopal.

I thought this thread was about Louisiana Americans burning British flags, and how Americans were (supposedly) blaming the British people for this.

What are you expecting people to say about the Union Carbide incident? Yes, it was wrong and terrible, and they should take responsibility too. OK? :confused:

I believe you may have had the moral high ground up until this point.;)

Sorry Alc, I got a little carried away. I grew up fishing out in the Gulf.
Sort of like seeing your old neighborhood burn.

I just thought it was in bad taste to use something of this magnitude to bust on Americans. A little like laughing at someone's mother while she is on her death bed.

"Whatever" about the flag burning but the content about the US attitude to oil is spot on.

They are the oil gluttons of the planet.
They did waive the environmental safeguards in the Gulf.
They did make war in Iraq for the access to oil.

But the Brits have nothing to be proud of. They were the prime movers behind the distasterous rise of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. They built their wealth on stolen oil. They exploited Iran for half a century. They tried to launch a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and implored the US to do it for them when they were expelled after their own attempt failed.

The Brits lied to the Arabs about fighting to win their freedom from the Ottoman Empire while making a deal with the French to split the region between them as spoils of war. Winston Churchill was one of the greatest arseholes of history but is remembered as a hero.

"Whatever" about the flag burning but the content about the US attitude to oil is spot on.

They are the oil gluttons of the planet.
They did waive the environmental safeguards in the Gulf.
They did make war in Iraq for the access to oil.

But the Brits have nothing to be proud of. They were the prime movers behind the distasterous rise of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. They built their wealth on stolen oil. They exploited Iran for half a century. They tried to launch a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and implored the US to do it for them when they were expelled after their own attempt failed.

The Brits lied to the Arabs about fighting to win their freedom from the Ottoman Empire while making a deal with the French to split the region between them as spoils of war. Winston Churchill was one of the greatest arseholes of history but is remembered as a hero.


So is this thread going to turn into nation slanging thread?

Brian

So is this thread going to turn into nation slanging thread?
It was from post #1 I guess.... This is another one of those theology discussion type threads isn't it?? :)

No, not nation slanging but simple statements of the facts. Moreover, if you recall, attitudes to nation slanging is what the original post was about.

I don't understand why some get so defensive about their nation. Personally I don't have a problem with facts. If more people actually acknowledged reality instead of chronic jingoistic attitudes the world would be a better place.

Apparently the great Aussie traditon of self deprecation is not widely understood on the rest of the planet. Must be our convict origins I guess. Or perhaps because we are descended from people of many nations.

One of my identites happens to be an Aussie. It is not my primary identity and it never will be. I just happen to be born here because my ancestors sailed here from England, Scotland, Poland and Denmark.

I can happily tell you our nation has a reprehensible record with our indigenous people. We have the embarrassment of participating in GW Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Like many others we have trashed our environment. Lots of Australians are bigoted yobos.

We are the largest CO2 emmitters per capita in the world. However I will say in our defence that the fact is we are huge producers of steel which makes a lot of CO2, much is exported to China and Japan. This is because our continent is the oldest and most eroded on the planet so the iron ore here is bloody near steel already so we can make it cheaper than anywhere else. (Just ask the Yanks. They decided we must be dumping it on the market because we make it cheaper than they can.)

Wake up and stop thinking your country and your culture is something special to be defended. Your resistence to criticism of these institutions is holding back your development as a human being. You can never progress if you cannot see the crap done in the name of your people.

No, not nation slanging but simple statements of the facts. Moreover, if you recall, attitudes to nation slanging is what the original post was about.



Wake up and stop thinking your country and your culture is something special to be defended. Your resistence to criticism of these institutions is holding back your development as a human being. You can never progress if you cannot see the crap done in the name of your people.

I guess I didn't jump to conclusions from post 1 and think " hey lets all slag each other off", as for being defensive about my country where is that?

I could have taken issue with Col on his Northern jibe (I live on Merseyside which contains Liverpool and is considered in the North by Essex boys), but we have our share of nut cases just like everybody else.

Brian

A huge chunk of Britains pension plan is invested in BP and defaulting on dividends would probably tank their economy. No wonder old people collecting handouts from the government are overly concerned about the situation.

Remember it is all about money - MONEY - not national pride or enviornment but MONEY! Even when they talk about the disaster to all of the animals who have occupied the land from before the time of people it is about the COST of fixing or preventing further damage.

But the Brits have nothing to be proud of. They were the prime movers behind the distasterous rise of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. They built their wealth on stolen oil. They exploited Iran for half a century. They tried to launch a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and implored the US to do it for them when they were expelled after their own attempt failed.

Don't forget we made alot of our wealth on slavery. That was good, otherwise we couldn't have run the empire.

Lots of seaport cities are built on the backs of slave trade - Bristol and Liverpool for just two.

We also exploited India, treated them like dirt, as well as many other colonies. It's what makes Great Britain what it is today - for what Americans call a "puny" little island.

Aahhh - good old days.

Col

I don't think most rednecks knew that the B in BP stood for British until it was pointed out to them.



Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company. I read just recently that 40% of shareholders live in the US.
Only American presidents and Daily Mirror readers thing it is a wholly owned British company.

Brian

I've always admitted that the war in Iraq was Bush's attempt at oil to feed the shareholders of his own oil companies. I believe Bush will go down as the worst President this country has ever seen. The people that died in his senseless war died for nothing because a war on "terror" (what I believe should be the war OF terror) is never-ending. You can't have a war on something that isn't substantial and when the players don't play by the rules of war. There will always be "terrorists" and Bush was the worst one. He used Americans fear after 9/11 to start this war.

I also admit that we use more oil than the rest of the planet, but that's more due to a lack of other transportation methods than anything else. There's still a lot of land in America that is all woods and farms, you have to have a car to get anywhere in my city. If I lived in Japan, it would be different, especially Tokyo.

It has been called British Petroleum Company since mid-1950s but has used BP as a trade mark since way before that as referring to "Best Possible"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/BP_Motor_Spirit%2C_1922.jpg

Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company. I read just recently that 40% of shareholders live in the US.
Only American presidents and Daily Mirror readers thing it is a wholly owned British company.

Brian

Some years ago I worked in the renewable energy industry. BP is a major player in that industry and a substantial manufacturer of solar modules.

They started promoting it as "Beyond Petroleum."

However I think it now means "Biosphere Pollution".

.... as for being defensive about my country where is that?

I took it as implicit in the rejection of criticism as soon as I mentioned negative comments about the history of the UK.

I've always admitted that the war in Iraq was Bush's attempt at oil to feed the shareholders of his own oil companies. I believe Bush will go down as the worst President this country has ever seen. The people that died in his senseless war died for nothing because a war on "terror" (what I believe should be the war OF terror) is never-ending. You can't have a war on something that isn't substantial and when the players don't play by the rules of war. There will always be "terrorists" and Bush was the worst one. He used Americans fear after 9/11 to start this war.

Well said Vassago.

I also admit that we use more oil than the rest of the planet, but that's more due to a lack of other transportation methods than anything else. There's still a lot of land in America that is all woods and farms, you have to have a car to get anywhere in my city. If I lived in Japan, it would be different, especially Tokyo.

You could cut back a lot by using more sensibly sized vehicles. The sheer size of the SUVs in the US is a real shock to anyone from Australia. Here we see the occasional giant Ford ute known as an F250 or F400. Some people use them to tow motorhomes but only a few are stupid enough to actually commute in them.

A friend of mine jokingly referred to seeing what must have been an F1000000 on a visit.

The Hummer is an excellent example of a completely irresponsible waste of oil.

Well said Vassago.



You could cut back a lot by using more sensibly sized vehicles. The sheer size of the SUVs in the US is a real shock to anyone from Australia. Here we see the occasional giant Ford ute known as an F250 or F400. Some people use them to tow motorhomes but only a few are stupid enough to actually commute in them.

A friend of mine jokingly referred to seeing what must have been an F1000000 on a visit.

The Hummer is an excellent example of a completely irresponsible waste of oil.

Thanks. You'll find that most Americans have smaller cars now and are going hybrid when possible. What you see on tv isn't necessarily what is actually happening. I've always drove cars with excellent gas mileage. :)

It is encouraging to hear things are beginning to move in the right direction. The decisions of the USA can be world changing because of the sheer size of the market and the far reaching influence on worldwide investment.

It is a tragedy that GWB and the Republicans managed to cheat their way back into power for a second term. So much opportunity lost on moving towards sustainable energy.

If something positive can come from the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico it will be the realisation that the real costs of petroleum technology far exceed what it costs to drill a hole and refine the gunk that comes out. Unfortunately few seem to have realised the three trillion dollars spent in Iraq are part of the cost of oil.

Too bad Obama will probably only last a single term before the reign of the Republicans again turns back the progress in favour to profit their constituent power holders.

I took it as implicit in the rejection of criticism as soon as I mentioned negative comments about the history of the UK.

I didn't reject criticism, merely asked about the direction of the thread.
Do you read and understand what is written or just make up your own posts?

Brian

It has been called British Petroleum Company since mid-1950s but has used BP as a trade mark since way before that as referring to "Best Possible"

Selective quoting is the same as lying by ommission.

British Petroleum merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) in December 1998,[28] becoming BP Amoco plc.[29] In 2000, BP Amoco acquired Arco (Atlantic Richfield Co.)[30] and Burmah Castrol plc.[31] In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc[29] and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline.

Brian

[quote=GalaxiomAtHome;970714 Winston Churchill was one of the greatest arseholes of history but is remembered as a hero.[/quote]

You forgot to mention that the evil Churchill also used Australian troops in the middle east to prevent the peace loving Nazi regime from getting its hands on the oil, you also forgot to mention that the evil British along with its commonwealth allies were the only hope for freedom for millions around the world, what a marvellous omission from the history professor, good job it was constructive criticism

I didn't reject criticism, merely asked about the direction of the thread.
Do you read and understand what is written or just make up your own posts?


From my time on these forums, I've noticed you're very defensive of anything that sheds a negative light upon the UK. That's understandable because it is your home country, but if we all puff up our chests anytime someone says negative things about our home country we would never get anywhere.


you also forgot to mention that the evil British along with its commonwealth allies were the only hope for freedom for millions around the world


Care to elaborate?

[QUOTE=Adam Caramon;970900]From my time on these forums, I've noticed you're very defensive of anything that sheds a negative light upon the UK. That's understandable because it is your home country, but if we all puff up our chests anytime someone says negative things about our home country we would never get anywhere.
QUOTE]

I guess it would be unreasonable of me to ask for references, but I have to disagree. However if you think that Galaxiom is correct in his assertions in this thread then I can understand where you get your ideas from.

Brian

Care to elaborate?

Well let's see, France,Poland,Holland,Norway etc etc, were under the Nazi jackboot whilst the US was still asleep in front of the box. The known anglophobes on the forum are at it again

As much as I agree the Iraq War was started for the wrong reasons by us, if I recall correctly we did have allies there and many were from the UK...

Well let's see, France,Poland,Holland,Norway etc etc, were under the Nazi jackboot whilst the US was still asleep in front of the box. The known anglophobes on the forum are at it againThink you left out Belgium:D

Edit. Missed the etcs :)

Well let's see, France,Poland,Holland,Norway etc etc, were under the Nazi jackboot whilst the US was still asleep in front of the box.


Interesting point of view.


I guess it would be unreasonable of me to ask for references, but I have to disagree. However if you think that Galaxiom is correct in his assertions in this thread then I can understand where you get your ideas from.


Not necessarily unreasonable, but it would take a lot of time for me to compile them, and I am sure when I did we would still have a difference of opinion on each statement. If it makes you feel better you're usually quite reasonable when the topics don't involve the UK.

The article, though poorly written, has done its job here.

Made something much more out of nothing by flying on the tails of nationalistic pride. A low-down tactic used by sleazy tabloids but very effective.

The article, though poorly written, has done its job here.

Made something much more out of nothing by flying on the tails of nationalistic pride. A low-down tactic used by sleazy tabloids but very effective.

Not really, I think most of the members here dismissed it exactly as a very ineffective tactic at causing debate. The author's opinions are definitely noted. :rolleyes:

Not really, I think most of the members here dismissed it exactly as a very ineffective tactic at causing debate. The author's opinions are definitely noted. :rolleyes:

Look at post 39. You've jumped from discussing the integrity of the article to US foreign policy. The tactic of the article has made this leap for you.

A credible journalist would provide references to the material that their opinions are based on. Without them the reader is unable to judge whether the writer's opinions are well grounded.

I'd say given the nature of the publication, it's all quite deliberately inflammatory.

Do papers in the US really provide references throughout articles.

Anyway it is as dangerous to disbelive everything you read in the paper as to believe it, if there are no references.

But that precisely what you have done.


The stomping concurs with an article in the times and the telegraph.

Oil consumption
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

US population about right.

Bhopal is correct is it not?

--

US position on Kyoto, seems a reasonable view on its climate change, Iraq is a widely held belief if not fact.


So inspection of the first few - seems fairly reasonable - so why do you choose to dismiss it all as incorrect.

It looks rather like its just convenient for you to dismiss it, with lack of references being the poor excuse.



With its consumption rate the US is the problem.

So inspection of the first few - seems fairly reasonable - so why do you choose to dismiss it all as incorrect.

It looks rather like its just convenient for you to dismiss it, with lack of references being the poor excuse.



The only two things I felt were worth dispute were the "facts" that flags were burned and flags were stomped on, suggesting that Americans were blaming the British somehow. I've seen no true news reports that either took place and never heard anyone blaming the British. It sounded a little too made up for my taste. The rest of the article is almost entirely strictly opinion, which you can't dispute as true or false.

I quoted all of the post you put so what are you referring to me as selective quoting? And what is with the selected quote of portion of a wiki below it?

Selective quoting is the same as lying by ommission.
Brian

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

It looks rather like its just convenient for you to dismiss it, with lack of references being the poor excuse.


What I dismiss is the credibility of the context of the article.

You say that the US is the problem and this may well be true. But the opinion is placed in the context of "flag-burning hypocrisy".

Where is this flag burning? Is it on a nationwide scale? Were they just a few drunks paid by journalists? Where are the photos? Was is it a funded event?

In order to correctly elevate the flag-burning to a nation being hypocritical, which is the entire thrust of the article, we need to know some more details of the event rather that "the sight of". We're not given anything just a reaction to it. This allows the writer to create his own scope of the event for himself.

I was always taught at school when writing on opinion you must give an adequate explanation of what you are writing on. This grounds your opinion into context.

If the article read "The sight of 2 US citizens burning a Union Jack"... then the notion of national hypocrisy quickly becomes ridiculous. It's for this very reason that I believe that any details were left out.

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian
When I worked for the company, back in the late '90s/early '00s, the merger with Amoco was in progress and when it came to decisions affecting the company as a whole it was an in-house joke that the name was 'BP Amoco', pronounced with a silent 'BP'.

By the way, the journalist doesn't even know what a redneck is.

A redneck by definition doesn't care about the environment. :p

The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

It's interesting that the original article doesn't point out this fact.

It's interesting that the original article doesn't point out this fact.

It was , somebody said, in the Daily Mirror, see post 38.

BTW by original argument i didn't mean post#1 but the argument about the Rednecks.

Brian

You are wrong. I did not quote or paraphrase that from a wiki, it is something I happen to know as the only gas station near where I grew up was a BP station, however, I did use the picture from the wiki which is tagged as "BP British Petroleum Co., Ltd., 1922 Union Jack ad."
Your original argument was that "it doesn't stand for anything" which was an inaccurate statement.

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company. I read just recently that 40% of shareholders live in the US.
Only American presidents and Daily Mirror readers thing it is a wholly owned British company.

Brian

Your original argument was that "it doesn't stand for anything" which was an inaccurate statement.

Actually, his original argument, in response to me, was:


Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company.


So assuming it used to stand for British Petroleum, but no longer does since approximately 10 years ago (which is Brian's assertion), then he'd be correct.

*FACEPALM*

Are you guys seriously debating over, not just what BP stands for (if anything), but what you each said BP stands for in an earlier post? :p

I think, forget all this arguing and bickering, there is a major problem on the coast of the USA.

I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".

Forget the bickering, lets sort the disaster, fight over the money later.

I know hundreds of people are doing what they can, as is BP (whatever that stands for, British or not) this is a huge problem, hundreds of birds and animals and sealife creatures will die.

I'm sorry I started this thread now, I didn't want it to turn into a nation bash, I just quoted what the Mirror columnist said for interest sake.

Col

Okay, thanks for the clarification Adam. That makes sense I guess...

So assuming it used to stand for British Petroleum, but no longer does since approximately 10 years ago (which is Brian's assertion), then he'd be correct.

I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".

Col

That same picture's been all over the news here. There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find. I know a friend of mine joined them last week. He said they trained them quickly on how to clean them off without causing distress to the animals and sent them in groups. It sounded like a very organized effort.

There have been tar balls seen east of the keys now. I fear it's only a matter of time before they show up on my beach. You can be sure that when they do, I'll definitely be doing my part to help clean it up.

When I worked for the company, back in the late '90s/early '00s, the merger with Amoco was in progress and when it came to decisions affecting the company as a whole it was an in-house joke that the name was 'BP Amoco', pronounced with a silent 'BP'.

It's funny, I worked for Amoco back in the late '90s when the merger was going on. We assumed it was 'BP Amoco', with a silent 'Amoco'. All of us knew it would eventually revert back to just being 'BP'. As an aside, when Brian mentioned that BP didn't stand for anything I was a little dumbfounded as we all knew it was British Petroleum back then. I guess they re-branded themselves as not just a British company?

That same picture's been all over the news here. There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find. I know a friend of mine joined them last week. He said they trained them quickly on how to clean them off without causing distress to the animals and sent them in groups. It sounded like a very organized effort.

I saw that picture this morning on the news. If I lived anywhere near the coastline I would definitely go to help. :(

I remember about 10 years ago BP changed the logo of the company, I don't recall a name change though.

I worked for Esso back in the 60's.

Col

Ironic?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/172797/BP-SIGN.jpg

There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find.

On the basis of their helping with the organisation BP claims they are "paying for the cleanup". But the key word here is "volunteers". It is they who are really footing the bill for the hidden cost of petroleum technology.

Meanwhile the fishing industry is paying very dearly. These guys have debts to cover but no income to do it.

On the basis of their helping with the organisation BP claims they are "paying for the cleanup". But the key word here is "volunteers". It is they who are really footing the bill for the hidden cost of petroleum technology.

Meanwhile the fishing industry is paying very dearly. These guys have debts to cover but no income to do it.

They are being compensated by the BP and the government, who is looking to BP to pay them back. It's better than nothing. As far as the volunteers go, I'd do it for the good of the planet, it's not about money at this point.

It's funny, I worked for Amoco back in the late '90s when the merger was going on. We assumed it was 'BP Amoco', with a silent 'Amoco'. All of us knew it would eventually revert back to just being 'BP'. As an aside, when Brian mentioned that BP didn't stand for anything I was a little dumbfounded as we all knew it was British Petroleum back then. I guess they re-branded themselves as not just a British company?
I'm sure you're right about the name, as written. as far as decisions were concerned, our senior management were under no illusions as to who was calling most of the shots.;)

But is is all about money - this is the reason why BP is concerned about 'capturing' the oil as it continues to fountain from the broken conduit rather then stemming the leak. The need to cut their losses.
The people and the area affected do not need volunteers - they need money - aside from compensating them for loss they should be offered jobs to clean up the mess and be compensated at the same wage they would have expected from their usual persuit of making a living. They will then be able to afford to spend the money to ensure the colateral income loss is prevented. The offer to compensate people for their debts from this crisis would probably not extend to all of the local area businesses or other businesses who depend on the local industries.

They are being compensated by the BP and the government, who is looking to BP to pay them back. It's better than nothing. As far as the volunteers go, I'd do it for the good of the planet, it's not about money at this point.

The people and the area affected do not need volunteers...

Of course they don't. :rolleyes:

But is is all about money - this is the reason why BP is concerned about 'capturing' the oil as it continues to fountain from the broken conduit rather then stemming the leak. The need to cut their losses.
The people and the area affected do not need volunteers - they need money - aside from compensating them for loss they should be offered jobs to clean up the mess and be compensated at the same wage they would have expected from their usual persuit of making a living. They will then be able to afford to spend the money to ensure the colateral income loss is prevented. The offer to compensate people for their debts from this crisis would probably not extend to all of the local area businesses or other businesses who depend on the local industries.

Then what do they do after cleanup is done, they have given up their jobs.... besides, that's assuming that people are willing to give up their jobs.... I think it would be rather short-sided to do that. Plus- people who volunteer, want to, so why not use their man-power.... Not only does it help the general effort to clean-up, but provides support to the people who live in the area, and lets them know that they are not alone in their effort, as I am sure a lot of them are volunteering as well (Just opinion, of course, no facts to back up these ideas)

Then what do they do after cleanup is done, they have given up their jobs.... besides, that's assuming that people are willing to give up their jobs.... I think it would be rather short-sided to do that. Plus- people who volunteer, want to, so why not use their man-power.... Not only does it help the general effort to clean-up, but provides support to the people who live in the area, and lets them know that they are not alone in their effort, as I am sure a lot of them are volunteering as well (Just opinion, of course, no facts to back up these ideas)

I somewhat think he may have been referring to offering jobs to those (like fishermen, etc.) whose livelihoods will already be affected due to this, rather than just giving them handouts as compensation. Thus it kills two birds with one stone, to pardon the expression. The people affected are being paid to help clean up the mess, so their income is replaced with this instead of what it would have been, and the mess gets cleaned up at the same time. Maybe I'm wrong?

I somewhat think he may have been referring to offering jobs to those (like fishermen, etc.) whose livelihoods will already be affected due to this, rather than just giving them handouts as compensation. Thus it kills two birds with one stone, to pardon the expression. The people affected are being paid to help clean up the mess, so their income is replaced with this instead of what it would have been, and the mess gets cleaned up at the same time. Maybe I'm wrong?

Aha, I see, it makes more sense then.... :)

Edit: Sometimes I can be dense. :p

I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".

Forget the bickering, lets sort the disaster, fight over the money later.

I know hundreds of people are doing what they can, as is BP (whatever that stands for, British or not) this is a huge problem, hundreds of birds and animals and sealife creatures will die.

Col: From a Louisiana resident, thank you! This is IMHO exactly correct. And the odds are it was either a pelican, a heron, or a seagull that you saw, given the birds that frequent the oil-soaked marsh area. You are right, it is heart-wrenching to see the dead birds and those still living but forever traumatized.

I see the spill-related reports as local news both on TV and in the local news rag. Not once have I seen any incident on any local newscast or any description in the newspaper that involved burning any flags. Of course, I might have missed a brief article, but if so, the referenced incident must have been very isolated in order for me to have missed it. In which case, the writer of the "news" article that triggered this thread was making a VERY faulty generalization.

The articles that have come out locally make it clear that this was yet another example of poor government oversight, just like Katrina's damage to drainage canal levees was the result of poor inspection by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

In this case, the Minerals Management Services folks are responsible for oil-drilling rig testing and safety inspections. It has come out that the responsible (?) parties skipped a couple of expensive safety tests that would have revealed hydraulic leaks in the safety shutoff cap that was supposed to be able to completely stop the flow in case of a blow-out. It uses something called a "ram valve" that totally blocks the pipe in multiple places.

They also ignored some gas bursts coming up the pipe that should have warned them of a problem, and they further skipped a test that would have verified (or in this case, disproven) the integrity of the concrete sheath that had been formed in that well.

I agree that the USA tends to use more oil than some. I make no excuses. Our nation is built on transportation of goods from point A to point B and we have a fairly large area to cover with that transportation. Transportation takes energy and we already use "hub" systems as much as possible to minimize the number of vehicles taking long routes.

Personally, I do my best to by an energy-efficient vehicle that meets my needs but not much more than that. I don't drive a small car but the one I drive doesn't have the biggest engine. It has enough to carry the loads I sometimes have to carry and that's it. I fully agree that a Hummer or other land barge is a bad joke. Sports cars that can drive 160 Mph when most states have 70 Mph speed limits represents another bad joke. But so far, market forces haven't completely killed production of those vehicles. The credit crunch MIGHT get ride of Hummer as a personal vehicle, though the military still needs the original version for combat transportation.

As to the Bhopal incident, I agree that Union Carbide acted reprehensibly. Environmental and human tragedies caused by greed that leads to cutting safety corners is unacceptable when it happens. There should be NO monetary cap on the cleanup cost, and the liability cost should only have a cap AFTER the cleanup is complete - and I DO mean complete.

I blame the US Republican party's laissez-faire attitude towards business as being responsible for the world-wide credit problems and lax regulatory safeguards. They tend to reduce the requirements on businesses so that they can make more profit. Not ONLY because business likes this, but because Republicans traditionally want to reduce the cost of government by downsizing it. But they take it to the point that there are no longer enough people to do an effective job in maintaining proper oversight or inspections. And that is why I'm not a registered Republican.

I see the problem as polarization of the two main parties so that middle-of-the-road solutions that balance safety and profitability are never addressed. I honestly think we would do better to have at least four or five political parties so that we would be FORCED to maintain a sense of compromise.

There, I've vented. Hope I made some sense to at least some of you.

There, I've vented. Hope I made some sense to at least some of you.

I actually can't argue with any of those points. Good post! :)

BP America on your side.




VENICE, La. – Professor Peter Lutz is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.
Under the heading "sensitive biological resources," the plan lists marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals. None lives anywhere near the Gulf.
The names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are no longer in service.
BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig are riddled with omissions and glaring errors, according to an Associated Press analysis that details how BP officials have pretty much been making it up as they go along. The lengthy plans approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one.
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said in an e-mail Wednesday to the AP that he and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, have asked for a criminal investigation of some of the company's claims.
"The AP report paints a picture of a company that was making it up as it went along, while telling regulators it had the full capability to deal with a major spill," Nelson said in an e-mail. "We know that wasn't true."
In its Deepwater Horizon plan, the British oil giant stated: "BP Exploration and Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan."





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_sketchy_plans

You not dense - I read your posts and they are far from dense.

The other reason to have the local persons be employed to do the clean up is that they will learn a marketable trade other then their previous lively hood. It is going to take more then just getting the surface of the gulf free of oil to clean up the mess. And the good people who are suffering have a lot of pride in being hard working people, so emotionally and spiritually they NEED to have work to do to be who they are...
The local tourist trade is going to also take a whack - if people want so desparately to go the any of the gulf states and do something - take a vacation there and spend your money - I am sure the local restaurants, hotels and tourist attractions would be more then welcoming to anyone who wants to lay down some money. The entire gulf perimeter economy is in crisis.
Aha, I see, it makes more sense then.... :)

Edit: Sometimes I can be dense. :p

You not dense - I read your posts and they are far from dense.

The other reason to have the local persons be employed to do the clean up is that they will learn a marketable trade other then their previous lively hood. It is going to take more then just getting the surface of the gulf free of oil to clean up the mess. And the good people who are suffering have a lot of pride in being hard working people, so emotionally and spiritually they NEED to have work to do to be who they are...
The local tourist trade is going to also take a whack - if people want so desparately to go the any of the gulf states and do something - take a vacation there and spend your money - I am sure the local restaurants, hotels and tourist attractions would be more then welcoming to anyone who wants to lay down some money. The entire gulf perimeter economy is in crisis.

Thanks for the compliment. :)

What people do for a living in these places didn't cross my mind when I replied to you. I think that some money will be spent by the volunteers, surely, on hotels and such the tourist attractions probably won't be as used. I know a woman who has a scheduled vacation to FL and was happy that it hadn't all been planned as beach time. I hadn't really though about that, but I agree that these communities are effected by the loss of tourism as well as all of the economic implications and loss of jobs.

There is always a cascade effect when there is a localized financial crisis, something which usually escapes the notice of many people as the news media only publishes statistics of % of unemployed. In localized areas the closure of a single industry can completely wipe a town off the map as the cash flow dwindles and other businesses are impacted by the loss of cashflow. The cascade is not often 'covered' in situations such as being faced by the gulf fishing industry, the people who went out in the boats might have their losses minimized but no one is going to go into the local restaurants or stores and give then a wad of cash... no one is going to go to perhaps a company up in New England and compensate them for the shrimp nets they did not sell to the gulf this season (or the next few years) or the other suppliers of goods and services to the areas...

There is always a cascade effect when there is a localized financial crisis, something which usually escapes the notice of many people as the news media only publishes statistics of % of unemployed. In localized areas the closure of a single industry can completely wipe a town off the map as the cash flow dwindles and other businesses are impacted by the loss of cashflow. The cascade is not often 'covered' in situations such as being faced by the gulf fishing industry, the people who went out in the boats might have their losses minimized but no one is going to go into the local restaurants or stores and give then a wad of cash... no one is going to go to perhaps a company up in New England and compensate them for the shrimp nets they did not sell to the gulf this season (or the next few years) or the other suppliers of goods and services to the areas...

There is of course, no good side to this. It's a disaster in every sense of the word. I suppose the only hope/encouraging thought (excluding for the moment environmental impact) is that given the recession people have already gotten used to cutting back their budgets, or have reduced debt to manage current economic layout, so maybe this won't be as big a blow as it could have been if this had happened two years, or even a year ago. Granted it is a HUGE blow nonetheless, I don't mean to downplay its size.

Experiencing the recession has indeed helped to hone some people's coping skills. It has also helped people to rekindle their spirits in regards to humility and focussing on what is baseline important in their lives. Sadly for many people it takes a HUGE upset such as this to be a 'life changing event' and many can only see the negative. Some can see that their strength and faith can get them past this.

Experiencing the recession has indeed helped to hone some people's coping skills. It has also helped people to rekindle their spirits in regards to humility and focussing on what is baseline important in their lives. Sadly for many people it takes a HUGE upset such as this to be a 'life changing event' and many can only see the negative. Some can see that their strength and faith can get them past this.

I think we could wish that this would be the response by everyone... humility that is. We can't always be in control, or foresee everything. We think, in general, that we have a good bead on things. But it just isn't so, and I don't mean just the religious (though certainly they do too). I think humility on everyone's part would reduce blame, and increase response and quicker resolution, and quicker moving on afterward. But I think the scars of this will be seen long after the clean-up has occurred, not only economically but in people's hearts also. (there will probably be bitterness and blame for many years to come, some will buck up and continue making their own lives what they can, others won't and will expect restitution instead, right or wrong)

Eidt: I say the last part thinking that the government won't be able to "fix" the problem. I don't think there will ever be "enough" restitution, some people will never be given their due in this situation.

Some guys out at work today were talking about a weekend fishing trip they took to an area near the coastline to the ENE of New Orleans, closer to the Mississippi state line. They are already seeing little "floaters" of oil working their way up some of the natural channels in the marsh. They didn't run into any dead fish but they didn't see any live ones in their favorite spots, either.

The economic crunch is now taking hold. P&J Oyster Co., which has been in business for 130+ years here in New Orleans, is unable to find local oysters. They are starting to buy from other nearby oyster beds, but the demand on those beds will deplete them all too soon. Not to mention that for some of the nearby sites will be oil-clogged themselves within days to weeks. P&J is now warning its employees that layoffs cannot be avoided once the reasonably close sites are depleted.

Some of the local restaurants that specialize in seafood are putting up "apology" signs. Others are raising prices to reflect the need to import fish from farther away. New Orleans cuisine is heavily based on local seafood. This will literally kill some restaurants. Our world-famous cuisine will be a shadow of its former self, thus impairing our tourist trade. That will in turn ripple down to the hospitality and hotel industry. There is also an offshore drilling ban that has already caused lots of crews to leave the area.

No, I'm not crazy. The truth is, more drill sites are "dry" rather than productive. This well was actually abnormal in many ways and is the first well in over 35 years to do anything like this. But by making the exploration crews leave, their service providers are going to suffer. And the exodus has started.

Because of post-Katrina construction, New Orleans was pretty much recession-proof for a long time. But this will be the nail in the coffin for our local economy. The state was already in a financial crunch because of the credit crunch affecting property taxes and because Katrina-damaged homes cannot be assessed at the same value as they once had. Businesses aren't bringing in sales tax revenue that strongly, either.

It is impossible to enumerate all of the Katrina-related and oil-spill related problems, but the state of Louisiana is going to have to adopt an austerity budget that will make people leave for other states. Welfare and medicaid recipients will suffer enormously. Tax hikes won't work here (historically speaking) because our state constitution requires the legislature to put big tax hikes on the ballot. Tax approval here is remarkably unlikely because our state politicians are not trusted that well.

Why did these cruddy politicians make it into office, you ask? Because they took advantage of the old principle called "lesser of two evils." Our most recent election was a face-off between a former TV news anchorwoman and political-machine crony who was also a traffic-ticket scofflaw. The news anchor won. But you can imagine the mud slinging match that went on.

The economic crunch is now taking hold. P&J Oyster Co., which has been in business for 130+ years here in New Orleans, is unable to find local oysters. They are starting to buy from other nearby oyster beds, but the demand on those beds will deplete them all too soon.

How is demand outweighing supply symptomatic of an economic downturn?

Sounds like more care should have been taken by them to preserve the natural resource they rely on to turn a profit.

Docman, It is sure that the road ahead will be long and hard. I will be praying for New Orleans. Are there any ways to transition economic reliance from the seafood industry to something else for the remainder of this crisis? A long shot surely, but there has got to be something that can be done. (In addition to clean-up, and time for things to begin growing/sustaining life again.)

How is demand outweighing supply symptomatic of an economic downturn?

Sounds like more care should have been taken by them to preserve the natural resource they rely on to turn a profit.


I think he meant the lack of supply was the economic crunch part of the oil spill, not the wider credit crunch.

May be wrong.

I think he meant the lack of supply was the economic crunch part of the oil spill, not the wider credit crunch.

May be wrong.

That would make more sense.

I found this report (http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/oil-spill-threatens-oldest-u-s-oyster-co/) on the issue. The owner of the business seems to be talking more of his fears of what could happen rather than what is actually happening at the minute.

What is happening is that demand is steady but supply is dwindling.

Dan-Cat, how do you preserve your sources of merchandise when an unforseen accident occurs? And in particular, when the merchandise is one that is successfully farmed only based on a limited resource - the coastline - and that resource is being fouled by the accident. I can grow fresh-water catfish in a pond inland, no sweat. Mississippi does this all the time. But oysters thrive in a particular ecological niche that is now being threatened. How do you preserve your sources other than by building 25- to 50-mile long booms across the front of the wetlands? And remember that the wetlands are federally protected so that a private person CANNOT build such a boom anyway.

I saw a newspaper report with a long interview and analysis. The guy is worried about the future, but he is already seeing some of his suppliers drying up.

Kryst, our problem with diversifying is that we were doing that when Katrina ate our city infrastructure. We were trying to attract other industries, but after the storm made it clear that we were flood prone, a lot of business don't want to move here. We don't want to move elsewhere because this is our home. So it is the proverbial rock and hard place decision.

I'll be honest. If I were not married at the moment, I would be living closer to my mother's family in central Alabama, where they diversified after the steel-mill industry changed. (BTW, it took them a good 25 years to do so.) But my wife's family is here and for now, here is where we stay. If Katrina had scattered wifey's kids, we would perhaps have chosen another place. But they didn't, and her mother is still here, too. So we will tough it out and hope that Katrina doesn't have a sister.

Back to British Petro.

It's owned by, 39% American, and 41% British.

Look like were in this together folks.

Back to British Petro.

It's owned by, 39% American, and 41% British.

Look like were in this together folks.

Really, the whole world should be involved with this one. The planet belongs to everyone and it will impact far more than just the US and UK in the long haul. International waters are international waters and I don't think the oil feels like it needs a green card to impact ocean lifeforms further than the Gulf.

Really, the whole world should be involved with this one. The planet belongs to everyone and it will impact far more than just the US and UK in the long haul. International waters are international waters and I don't think the oil feels like it needs a green card to impact ocean lifeforms further than the Gulf.

Are you raving?

Are you raving?
raving what? :confused:

raving what? :confused:

As in the UK and the US are alone or nearly so in many ventures around the world.

As in the UK and the US are alone or nearly so in many ventures around the world.

Its called the special relationship over here - does the US have that term?

We do what you want - in return for a lucrative lecture tour for our PM - when we decide he's a good for nothing lapdog.

As in the UK and the US are alone or nearly so in many ventures around the world.

:confused:

That still doesn't clear up the "Are you raving?" comment...

:confused:

That still doesn't clear up the "Are you raving?" comment...

Meaning it's not a global problem. Oh others may pay a price, but Americans will be the ones to deal with it. Both in terms of the cleanup and the possible loss of offshore drilling which will cost us 500,000 jobs.

Meaning it's not a global problem. Oh others may pay a price, but Americans will be the ones to deal with it. Both in terms of the cleanup and the possible loss of offshore drilling which will cost us 500,000 jobs.

I'm not talking about economics here. I'm talking about the planet.

I'm not talking about economics here. I'm talking about the planet.

The Planet will survive this spill. That's what I meant by raving.

Nothing will change, there is only one hope for Gaia, extenction of 85% of the humans infesting the planet.

So if you want to hope for something, that would be a great start.

Nothing will change, there is only one hope for Gaia, extenction of 85% of the humans infesting the planet.
.
Including Americans?:eek::confused:

Including Americans?:eek::confused:

No... We are superior in every way... we get to stay. :p:eek:;):D

The Planet will survive this spill. That's what I meant by raving.

Nothing will change, there is only one hope for Gaia, extenction of 85% of the humans infesting the planet.

So if you want to hope for something, that would be a great start.

Of course the planet will survive the spill, but it'll still have an impact for a long period of time, especially on the wildlife in the Gulf. Scientists are also stating that the oil could impact our tropical season this year. They have no idea how the inclusion of oil into a tropical system will turn out. It's going to be an interesting hurricane season. :mad:

No... We are superior in every way... we get to stay. :p:eek:;):D

I know plenty of Americans we should include in the 85% that are extinguished. :D

But Canada, we don't need them. Take them all! :p

I know plenty of Americans we should include in the 85% that are extinguished. :D

But Canada, we don't need them. Take them all! :p

You ruined my joke! Some British person was supposed to respond with the usual "Americans are so egocentric" remark. :p

You ruined my joke! Some British person was supposed to respond with the usual "Americans are so egocentric" remark. :p

Yeah, but I turned it into my own! :cool:

Isn't that a typical American trait?

You ruined my joke! Some British person was supposed to respond with the usual "Americans are so egocentric" remark. :p

I couldn't spell it. ;)

Brian

Yeah, but I turned it into my own! :cool:

Isn't that a typical American trait?

Yeah..... Stupid Americans.... :eek:

I couldn't spell it. ;)

Brian

That's because you guys misspell everything, with your added vowels and such. Colour, aluminium, etc... :D

Yeah..... Stupid Americans.... :eek:

Stupid humans would be more appropriate. ;)

Yeah..... Stupid Americans.... :eek:

Careful there. Texans seem to be cornering the market as of late...

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/06/17/bts.barton.bp.hayward.hearing.cnn

One question. Did anyone find any proof of the purported flag burning? I read through the thread, but must have missed it if it was linked to.

Meaning it's not a global problem. Oh others may pay a price, but Americans will be the ones to deal with it. Both in terms of the cleanup and the possible loss of offshore drilling which will cost us 500,000 jobs.

Why will Americans have to suffer the loss of 500,000 jobs. For what reason?

I watched 30 minutes of the Congression Panel yesterday - what a waste of everyones time - and I missed 6 hours plus of it!

Hayward had to say what he did, and then on the other side a lot of electioneering and witchhunting and new found expertise in oil drilling. Conveniently ignoring lots of it was approved by the US authorities.

The republicans not liking the 20bn fund was interesting.

Yes congressman - it is Thursday! Shhsh.

Why will Americans have to suffer the loss of 500,000 jobs. For what reason?

I watched 30 minutes of the Congression Panel yesterday - what a waste of everyones time - and I missed 6 hours plus of it!

Hayward had to say what he did, and then on the other side a lot of electioneering and witchhunting and new found expertise in oil drilling. Conveniently ignoring lots of it was approved by the US authorities.

The republicans not liking the 20bn fund was interesting.

Yes congressman - it is Thursday! Shhsh.

That's the number of people employeed in Offshore Drilling in the US

That's the number of people employeed in Offshore Drilling in the US

Is it going to stop over this? Why?

Yeah..... Stupid Americans.... :eek:
Ah don't be so harsh on yourselves, Bush has left now

Ah don't be so harsh on yourselves, Bush has left now

Are you saying you like us now? :p

That's the number of people employeed in Offshore Drilling in the US
Let's not forget it was an american subcontractor that was doing the drilling for BP

I'm not going to quibble over exact numbers, but here's where a lot of people are going to lose their jobs.

Thousands of folks were engaged in offshore drilling activities. There is now a moratorium on same, so those folks have the choice of waiting around for drilling to open up (with no income in the interim) or moving elsewhere and hoping to find work.

Tens of thousands of people support the the offshore workers. That includes transport, medical support, offshore food supply and catering, clothing, tools, etc. When you don't do the activities that needed those things, the job losses ripple outward.

Then there are the grocers, restaurant owners (onshore), laundries, car dealers & mechanics, pharmacies, etc. The next layer of the support network for the offshore gang. Will it be a full half-million jobs that we lose? Don't know. Will a lot of jobs get reduced or stopped completely? Bet on it.

This situation pretty much wipes out any chance of an energetic recovery from Katrina in the next few years.

BP has 20,000 UK employees and 40,000 American employees, yes let's bankrupt it:rolleyes:

Are you saying you like us now? :p
I don't remember ever stating that I didn't:p

A lot of common people do not understand the economic impact of what is going on with the projected cost of fixing this tragedy exceeding the market value of BP. Very obvious that the people in USA on the gulf are screwed for a long while no matter what the outcome is from this point forward.
The economic impact is long reaching into the USA from all of the colateral employment based on the industries on the coast needing support labour and materials, and the subsequent jobs to support those industries.
If BP folds that would be a huge impact on most of the British pension plans, it would stabalise the FTSE by basically tanking it and devaluating the pension funds and plunging the British economy into a very dark place. People who depend on the pension handouts would be with less money or without money, which would also devistate a lot of support industries and put a higher tax burden on those who are currently employed.