Whispers from the Wild

From the BBC:

Exxon Mobil has won the right to appeal against $2.5bn in damages relating to a 1989 Alaskan oil spill. The US Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal against damages due to victims of the Valdez oil spill.

The case has dragged on since 1994, with US oil giant Exxon fighting to reduce the amount, which the company has called excessive. Lawyers for the victims, some of whom are now dead, said that the damages award was “barely more than three weeks of Exxon’s net profit”.  In 2006, Exxon reported the highest ever net annual profit for a US business at $39.5bn.

Read the full story here.

Even though I seriousy doubt it’s the case, I live in hope that the court is hearing this case to actually consider raising the damages, not lowering them.  But I fear that’s wishful thinking, and as a large oil company that owns Bush, Exxon will end up having the supreme court rubber-stamp their reduction in fines, and somehow adding an air of legitimacy to their story.

Their defense at the time was to disassociate.  Sure the captain was pissed out of his skull on vodka, but just because he was an Exxon employee didn’t mean that made it Exxon’s fault.  Back in those days, when the Supreme Court actually stood for justice, it pointed out what an utter load of bollocks that defense was, and handed down what was at the time the biggest fine of its kind in history – to match the incident, which itself was the biggest pollution by a single incident of its kind in history (even if it wasn’t the most oil ever released, its location – right in a wildlife habitat – made it the worst in terms of impact).

In those days the huge oil corporations were making ever bigger tankers so that they could save a few dollars each trip by transporting ever larger amounts of crude.   They were also building ships that resembled nothing more than huge tanks with a propeller and a rudder at one end.  These tankers had a single hull which, if punctured, hemorrhaged oil like a human might hemorrhage blood from a major artery.  As a direct result of this particular incident, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 which among other things required oil companies to have emergency accident plans but more significantly required that new tankers have double hulls, to vastly lessen any oil released by damage to the vessel, and eliminate it altogether in minor damage cases that only punctured the outer hull.

Incidently, the Exxon Valdez itself, still sails today.  It’s been renamed the Mediterranean but still sails for Exxon under their SeaRiver Maritime company flag.  Although many people remember the name Valdez, Not so many realise the ship involved in that incident is still carrying oil, even though it now does have a double hull.

But Exxon have NEVER accepted that the damages were fair.  They’ve appealed and appealed and appealed – even on one occasion having the damages against them raised.  Initially they were fined five billion dollars, which they managed to cut in half to the current two point five billion dollars which is the subject of this latest appeal.

So how much do they want it cut to?  Well, they’ve said $25M is a “fair amount”  DO ME A FAVOUR!  Let’s look at that for a minute.  25 million dollars.

In 2006 they announced a profit of 39.5 billion for the year.  Let’s divide that by 365 for the days.  29,500,000,000 (yes, that IS a lot of naughts, and is how you write 29.5 billion) divided by 365 equals 80,821,917 a day – yes, that’s 80 million, 821 thousand 917 dollars A DAY they made in 2006.  Let’s divide that by 24 for the hours in day.   $3,367,579 or 3.3 million an hour is what they made in 2006.  So 25 million is is just under 8 hours of profit.

8 hours of profit for the deaths of, at best estimates, 250,000–500,000 seabirds, 2,800–5,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as billions of salmon and herring eggs.

And the worst part of it?  They’ll probably get away with it.  It’s enough to make you give up on humankind.  It’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

Supplied by Halliburton, one wonders?

A man who left a 96-year-old war veteran blind in one eye after attacking him on a packed tram has been given a three-year supervision order.

Read the full story here.

That bloke was GRINNING when he left court.  He blinded a 96 year old who is now in a residential home for what remains of his days, and this piece of complete and utter shit was grinning as he left court!

Why the hell DID he leave court in any way other than a prison van?  It’s getting unbelievable how bad the situation is in the UK.  Both Inspector Gadget and Bystander have blogged about this, one from a police point of view (who definitely doesn’t agree with the sentence) and one from a magistrates point of view (who appears to agree with the sentence)

But to prove that the UK is FUBAR’d totally, and that the above wasn’t an isolated sentencing insanity incident:

TWO men used a knife to play noughts and crosses on a naked woman’s back, a court heard yesterday.

 

The 41-year-old victim was also raped and sexually assaulted during the 12-hour ordeal at her own home, Bradford Crown Court was told.

The “systematic and deliberate torture” all took place on her birthday.

This full story is available here.

At least one of these guys was sent down indefinitely, but nine years for the other one?  What kind of joke is that supposed to be?  They rape and torture a woman in her own home, on her birthday and are actually caught in the act (otherwise it would have gone on longer, and may very well have ended in the poor woman’s death) and one is told he “must serve six years” while the other one is given a nine year sentence, which, under UK law, means he’s eligible for parole and potentially release for good behaviour after just four and a half years!

The pentioner and the woman, both victims of horrendous crimes, have life sentences.  The pentioner will be blind in that eye and the woman’s back will always bear scars where they carved their sick game into her back, and one perp walks free from imprisonment altogether, one gets nine years – less than five with ‘good behaviour’ in prison and one has only to spend six years inside before he can be considered for parole…

Normally I’d say I was against capital punishment, but in these cases the judges should be up alongside the perps.  This is utterly outrageous and goes to show that the UK is totally out of control when it comes to law and order.

It makes me glad to have left.

Esteemed members, I thank you for this chance to address the United Nations.

The issue that is being forced before us is of the same degree of troubling nature as the decision faced by European countries in 1939.  Indeed, we have the same terms being used by the esteemed member from the United States.  In world war two the side led by Hitler became known as the Axis, while the opposing side became known as the allies.  Here in 2007 we are told that an “alliance of the willing” needs to oppose the “axis of evil”.

The president of the United States of America may have got the adage wrong, but I will not:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Esteemed colleagues, in 2003 the United States fooled us all once, and shame on them for doing so.  We believed that Iraq was on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction, because our colleagues in the United States stood before us and promised that they had firm evidence that this was the case.  History has shown that it was not.  History has shown that our own nuclear inspectors were correct, Saddam Hussein was destroying what munitions he had left, and did not have the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons we were told he had.

Fool me once, shame on you.

But now the United States is trying to fool us again, and shame on US if we believe it this time.  We are being told that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and should be prevented from doing so, by military means if necessary.

And yet this contradicts, for a second time, our own findings.  The International Atomic Energy Agency has sent inspectors to Iran.  They report no evidence of a military weapons program.  Should we once again believe one member state that has already been wrong on a previous occasion about the same kind of intelligence, where our own intelligence gathering builds a totally different picture?

On top of that, we are being asked to believe contrary scenarios about Iran.  On the one hand we are being asked to believe that Iran is so clever, so cunning, so bold that they are able and willing to hide a nuclear weapons program from us – but on the other hand the same country that wishes us to believe that also believes that an Iran that did have nuclear weapons would be stupid and reckless enough to immediately use them on another member state, even knowing that to do so would bring worldwide condemnation and an unparalleled negative response.  Which is it, Mr Secretary General?  Is Iran cunning and bold, or is it stupid and reckless?  Surely it cannot be both.

Or maybe it is neither.  Maybe it is simply doing what both it and the IAEA say it is doing, what it has a legal mandate allowing it to do – to develop civilian nuclear technology.  If that is the case, what our colleagues from the United States are asking us to do is to consider war and sanctions against a country which, by international law, has yet to do anything wrong.

Mr Secretary General, Member Nations, the entire philosophy behind justice is that a wrongdoer is punished for something they have done.  It is not to punish someone for something that they might – or equally might not – do in the future.  That is not justice, that is vigilante behaviour.  And let us examine that for a moment, in the light of such situations as Guantanamo Bay.  It has recently been of concern to the United Nations that the esteemed nation of the United States has been explicitly permitting techniques which by the declaration of human rights endorsed by this very body, could be construed as torture.  Indeed, it is aware of that as its internal policy documents even make mention that the techniques fall into the legally dangerous area of being regarded as torture.  And yet even though there is pressure on the United States to close this facility, it refuses to do so, citing the vigilante reason for doing so – that they must do this because it might prevent someone doing something in the future. 

Within their own country they may be able to justify in their own minds that suspension of Habeas Corpus is justified, but by international law it is not.  It is bad enough that one member state continues to ignore the rule of justice, without them persuading the rest of us to follow that path too.

Mr Secretary General, member nations, we are being asked to cross a line here that should not be crossed.  We are being asked to endorse a second illegal war, having already been duped into allowing a first one.  I will say it again:  There turned out to be no reason, no justification, for the invasion of Iraq, under international law.  Whereas in the first gulf war where Iraq did invade another sovereign nation, on this occasion it remained within its borders, and still we turned a blind eye when the United States invaded.  Now, according to some human rights groups, over a million people have lost their lives since the invasion took place.  A million lives!  Are we now to endorse another million lives being lost in neighbouring Iran?  Because, let me remind member states, the President of the United States has refuse to rule out any kind of military action, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons held by his own country.  We have here a country willing to use the nuclear weapons we know it has, against another country  whose nuclear ambitions are still a matter for debate!  How many thousands of lives could be lost if such weapons were deployed?

Albeit a prominent member, the United States of America is only that – a member of this esteemed organisation.  It has never, historically, run the United Nations, nor must it – or any other single country – be allowed to run the United Nations.  There is a difference between hosting the United Nations and running it, and that difference is a line that must never be crossed.

Ultimately it must be on the conscience of any nation, just as Iraq must be on the conscience of any nation that allowed it to be invaded and its citizens to be killed.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  How many nations will stand in the face of being fooled a second time, and say NO?

Iran has the legal right to develop civilian nuclear technology without interference by other nation states, and we must stand behind that right or it means nothing for anyone.  I urge member states to consider carefully what we are being asked to support here, and decide where the line that must not be crossed should be drawn.

Thank you for your time, and for this chance to address the esteemed body.

But I just find it co-incidental…

WASHINGTON (AP) — Blackwater USA tried to take at least two Iraqi military aircraft out of Iraq two years ago and refused to give the planes back when Iraqi officials sought to reclaim them, according to a congressional committee investigating the private security contractor.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wants the company to provide all documents related to the attempted shipment and to explain where the aircraft are now.

In a letter sent Friday to Erik Prince, Blackwater’s top executive, Waxman said he learned of the 2005 attempt from a military official who contacted the committee. That official is not identified in the letter, nor is the type of aircraft.

Now, does anyone remember what happened back in 2005? Billions of dollars was flown into Iraq, stacked neatly on pallets. Would it not be rational to assume that at least some of those pallets were flown elsewhere for “distribution”?

So how is this for a scenario. Blackwater find out this money is going to come into Iraq, but it will be guarded by US Troops at its arrival point, so they discover where two aircraft are going to be taken that have some of that money on board. Then when those aircraft land, they’re hijacked by Blackwater staff and spirited away – money and all.

Is this beyond the scope of what Blackwater might do? Maybe. But two military planes are missing, and the reason has yet to be determined. I will be following this story with great interest, since the timing is about right.

This story is a LONG way from finished…

You may recall the bitter hatred being directed toward those who felt S-CHIP was a good idea, by a certain conservative blog I spoke about.

Well, it would appear that fate has decided to administer a swift kick to the conservatives. Tonight there was a very interesting posting:

Our good blog friend Russ got hit with some extra high medical expenses, and he’s asked us if there’s anything we can do. This was rather unfair of Russ because, as a Catholic, I was rather caught in a bind…I had eaten meat on this Friday, and I hadn’t made any sacrifice in order to be excused from eating fish. So, off goes the donation to Russ. If you can find it in your heart (and, fellow Catholics, how was that cheeseburger today?), please consider making a small (or large, if you’ve got it), donation at Russ’ website.

(link removed by me)

Following the link to that website, I find that this staunch Republican, who thought President Bush’s veto was just and right, has himself become a victim of conservative values. He writes:

And surely you’re asking yourself, “why, in this day and age, would a person not have medical insurance to cover those costs?”

Long, convoluted story. Or maybe not so convoluted.

I’m a contract employee with no benefits; in the tech industry, this isn’t altogether unusual. When my current medical crisis began, though, we all thought it was related to an old Army back injury, which would be covered by the Veterans Administration. Then last autumn, I was informed by my management that my employment status would be upgraded and converted to regular (benefitted) at the start of 2007.

In short, I had no need to buy insurance. I was covered for this. Then, two things happened.

First, the doctors changed their assessment of the cause of my medical problems. No longer could it be attributed to my VA-coverable injury, so naturally the VA will not cover my medical care. I don’t begrudge them this at all; that’s just the way things are. I checked this every which way; the only way I could receive treatment from the VA would be if I were unemployed and homeless, which isn’t about to happen.

Second — and this is the irksome bit — someone at the VP level at my place of employment decided that the best way to make his budget numbers look good to his boss was to freeze all personnel actions. I’m not the only person who has been waiting since January to receive an overdue promotion or even conversion to “regular” status.

This, mind you, in an organization and at a company that professes to believe that its people are its most important asset. They sure have a funny way of showing it.

Me and a dozen of my coworkers have had our careers put on hold, just so a VP can maximize his annual bonus. I hope he chokes on it.

Now, I have no idea how much this guy earns, or whether he has children – but what this DOES go to show is that you can never truly be secure in a situation without a safety net, which was what S-CHIP would have been if correctly funded. Republicans happily trample Republicans when it comes to their own careers. As this person has found out, what he didn’t know has left him in a severely bad state, especially since the Republican model of creative accounting (i.e. stealing from others to forward their own careers) is alive and well in his workplace.

Yet he and his buddies, when they think they’re not at risk, are quite happy to begrudge those less fortunate than themselves a proper healthcare net.

So, this Republican blogger now has a Paypal donate button on his website to try and raise money for his medical costs. Good look to him. But I can’t help but rub his nose in the fact, that it might not be so much of a crisis had Bush’s veto been overriden.

Conservatives… Republicans… take note. You just got rid of the safety net YOU may one day need. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.

I was lurking at a staunchly pro-Republican blog, when I saw this argument break out. A conservative poster commented:

Has Hillary and the Liberals suddenly seen the light and realized that American taxpayer dollars should be spent on American citizens? On American children?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! It’s simply a matter of strategy. Have Americans forgotten that one of the Democrats’ priorities is to legalize those 20 million or more illegal aliens (Hillary of course uses the low end 12 million estimate)?!

HILLARY’S STRATEGY: First pass the healthcare covering “legal immigrants” to gain enough support from the American people. Once that’s done, legalize those 20 million illegals, who immediately qualify for taxpayer funded healthcare — and demand more tax dollars to pay for them! Slap the American taxpayers up side their head and rob their pockets!!!

To which a disgusted liberal poster replied:

What a bigot.
Where I come from and what my God expects from me: Help a sick child. It dont matter if that child is the product of an illegal mexican, or a Baptist Preacher.
He/she is an innocent child. That is not politics talking…that is what Jesus taught.

But not in <conservative commentor>’s book. If that child is a little brown skinned kid with a funny accent…no siree…we aint helping that little spic kid.
We only help good old white american kids.

The response, from someone who has in the past claimed to be a good Republican Christian, was utter hatred:

You are a useless liberal expecting everyone else to pay for your enslaving welfare which chains people to government hand-outs, drains their incentive, and keeps them and their children and their children’s children locked in poverty, unable to rise to their full potential, and achieve the higher standard of living that America provides for all those who are willing to work hard to achieve it!

It’s Liberals like you who do the most harm to people “in the name of [false] caring and helping”!

The sad and pathetic fact is you don’t know the difference! ! ! ! !

It got me thinking – is this how Republicans have redefined Christianity?

The Bible I was brought up knowing had a very relevant passage. Matthew 25:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

And this is not only the SCHIP debate in a nutshell, but how Republicans have redefined Christianity. To this commentator, Christian charity only applied to non immigrant, non liberal people. Anyone else was unworthy.

Ann Coulter would be proud. But shall I tell you who would most definately NOT be proud?

Jesus.

Jesus taught tolerance, taught “suffer the little children to come unto me” – he didn’t differentiate between people on the grounds of nationality, or colour, or birth or even religion. “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Jesus would not want to die for the sins being committed in His name by Republicans these days. It is in Christ’s name that these hatemongers spew their vileness at everyone who contradicts them. They claim to be Christians, but I see no examples set by Christ that they’re following.

WWJD? Not ally himself with such bigots, that’s for sure!

Desperate to deflect anger about their own disrespect to the troops, ably imbodied in Rush Limbaugh’s “Phony Soldiers” remark, Republicans have seized gleefully on house rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) who declared during the S-CHIP debate:

“You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

I’ve already seen it posted on some right wing websites that this is an attack on the troops. They have taken the “blow up innocent people” remark and (excuse the phrase) blown it up out of all proportion, accusing Rep. Stark of badmouthing the troops.

Well, nobody – especially not Rep. Stark – is saying that troops deliberately go out of their way to blow innocents up. But innocent people are dying in Iraq, and some are dying as a result of the troops actions. It even has a nice, sterile sounding name that helps Republicans not recognise it for what it is.

They call it “collateral damage”.

But what it essentially means, whenever it does happen, is that innocent people got killed. Some of them will have been blown up.

I see absolutely no reason for the representative to apologise. If Rush Limbaugh can get away with calling soldiers who disagreed with the war “phony”, which was a genuine attack on troops who disagree with his standpoint, and Republicans agree with him, they have NO right to criticize someone for pointing out that innocent people are dying in Iraq, and that sometimes it’s our fault they’re dying.

This is just a blatent smokescreen to hide their own hatred of any soldier that doesn’t see things the way they do. Sickening, truly sickening.

The money is going to be spent anyway.

The question is not whether it will be spent, but where it will be spent.

So the very simple question is this:

Do you want the money spent on saving US lives, or taking Iraqi ones?

 Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans’ phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying” any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.

“Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities,” Watts wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.

Read the full story here.

The disobedience of Cheney and Bush to Congress is inexcusable, and should never have been permitted to go on this long -  but now we have private companies disobeying Congress because not doing so might get Bush and Cheney into trouble?

Just how thick (or bought) do they think Congress is?

The latter actually wouldn’t surprise me, given that Pelosi actually seems to be aware Bush wanted evesdropping introduced a full half year before 9/11.  She’s so far been about as useful as a chocolate tea pot when it comes to making Bush and Cheney accountable.  Need I remind Democrats in Congress that a reason you were elected was to stop Bush and Cheney and other members of the administration riding rough shod over the constitution.  When are you going to start doing your jobs?

Let me make it real simple for you guys:

The illegal occupation of Iraq MUST END

Torture, indefinite detention without habeas corpus, “extraordinary rendition” and other operations Bush and Cheney are up to that they don’t want to talk to Congress about MUST END

Refusing to talk to Congress – who are the legal lawmakers in US Politics – on any grounds, including “national security” MUST END (because how can one honourably make a law without considering all the aspects?)

And if Bush, Cheney or ANYONE else tries to stop these things from happening THEY MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE – by impeachment if necessary.

It’s not rocket science.  The Bush administration is giving the finger regularly to Congress and doing whatever the hell it feels like doing, legal or not.  That must stop.  The spiral down from Democracy into Police State has to be reversed; it’s already well under way.

And if the current Congress haven’t got the balls to do it, then lets see someone who has step up and take the job!