Westernskies
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,864
What happened to "due process", "innocent until proven guilty" etc.
That's so 20th (...and 19th, and 18th) century. Embrace the change.
What happened to "due process", "innocent until proven guilty" etc.
Nah, we should go back a few more. Those Spanish Inquisition guys knew how to get to the bottom of things.That's so 20th (...and 19th, and 18th) century. Embrace the change.
Now that all the "I reported X was broken and they just told me to get back to work" stories are coming in, I get a feeling of "There but for the grace...".Many industries are appallingly negligent. Industry standard is the cheapest crappiest garbage that they can get past an inspector who is not well educated, well paid or looking too closely
Think of taxi drivers in New York and you understand "industry standard"
- When you get to the top, the senior executives, many of whom are actually pretty good people except for their tendency to groupthink, are genuinely shocked to find how their inherently contradictory messages of quality, safety, and profit have been twisted by the people below them.
Ugh! Yeah! Who do you think invented waterboarding!Nah, we should go back a few more. Those Spanish Inquisition guys knew how to get to the bottom of things.
I did not watch these hearings. While I have not testified like Emeritus, I have prepared witnesses (and their testimony) for Congressional hearings, and I have watched a number of them. As a general rule, nobody ever answers yes or no. And the senators don't really care; they just want to make the witness look bad for not answering. You would have better luck locating the Loch Ness monster than learning the truth about anything as a consequence of Congressional hearings.
Ugh! Yeah! Who do you think invented waterboarding!
Well, I have to admit I don't think even Cheney can outdo the Spanish Inquisition!I read here somewhere it was Dick Cheney...
That's so 20th (...and 19th, and 18th) century. Embrace the change.
Looks like a judge blocked the drilling ban.
This looks like one of those rulings where a judge could would find a basis for a ruling either way...
Judge blocks Obama move on drilling - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com
Apparently the judge owned oil company and oil drilling stock in 2008. He is being looked at for a potential conflict of interest.
The Obama administration indicates that they will appeal the ruling.
This is a tough decision. If a second problem occurred and no ban was in effect, wouldn't the press and the politicos have a field day?
This is a tough decision. If a second problem occurred and no ban was in effect, wouldn't the press and the politicos have a field day?
Obviously BP wants to control information about the circumstances that led up to the spill because there will be litigation between the parties and the Feds about who pays how much and possible criminal charges.
Why wait for the truth? In his world, the verdict is already in.
What happened to "due process", "innocent until proven guilty" etc. Isn't any of that part of an "ethics" class?
I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? ...
If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.
Personally I think we can safely drill for oil ...
Is there some possibility I have missed?
Every activity entails risk. 40,000 people die in auto accidents in the US each year, and many more injuries - yet we don't stop driving. How do you defend that?
-ERD50
I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? It's one thing to argue for due process, which I actually agree is important. But, in my opinion, any practice, legal or not, that results in such horrendous consequences, is wrong.
If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.
Is there some possibility I have missed?
Don't have too , its the wrong analogy. The risk isnt the same for all operators. Some people and countries and companies and industries have a high level safety culture and some do not. You emulate and encourage the good ones and put your boot on the neck of the cowboys.
Asked once before, never got an answer- what successful companies can you offer as shining examples of your unique perception of corporate responsibility, with perfect product and personnel safety records, perpetual product improvement with lifetime retroactive product upgrades, cradle-to-grave warranties, and minty fresh breath? You know, the folks that don't need the new sheriff in town puttin' his boots on their necks? Surely they can't all be as bad as you would have us believe...
The fact that no students in class get 100% does not mean there is no difference between 92 % and 37% The fact that some drunk drivers are far more drunk than other drunk drivers is also important. You always go hard on the worst criminal first.
The fact that no students in class get 100% does not mean there is no difference between 92 % and 37% The fact that some drunk drivers are far more drunk than other drunk drivers is also important. You always go hard on the worst criminal first.
This is an investigation. It always takes place before a trial. Any witness can say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me" No problem. That's due process. Otherwise you answer the questions. Under oath and witht eh penalties for perjury. That is what "subpoena" means
Hang'em now, we'll get to the trial later.Since the time of the Titanic Congressional hearings have been used to drag information out of recalcitrant wrongdoers. Its the only way to nail down the facts before the purjurors get together to coordinate the lies.
[-]Hang'em now[/-] Award damages first, we'll get to the trial later.