It would seem then that BP is the very example of “crony capitalism” that many conservatives and libertarians have railed against in the past. Then why do such persons, whether they are Congressmen, or radio talk-show hosts, continue to believe that British Petroleum is the equivalent of the mom-and-pop grocery store which is being forced to move from its corner lot because of eminent domain for a new skyscraper after its owners refused to grease the local politician on the building commission? What if it were, instead of BP, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan oil company CITGO whose off-shore rig blew-up and began spilling oil in the Gulf, fouling beaches and destroying the livelihoods of thousands? Would it still be considered a “shakedown”?
via amconmag.com
2 comments:
Answer: It all depends on which political party is in charge.
BP ceases to be a victim if there's no political advantage to making them one.
Classic ownership dilemma. Since the ocean is deemed 'public' (read: owned by no one and thus not cared for) there is no accountability.
Also, Strupp raises a valid point.
BP must, and should, pay for all damages incurred by its failure. However, that does not give the executive branch the magical power to demand an arbitrary amount of money from it to disperse as the executive so pleases.
The compassionate liberals and conservatives who railed against the shakedown mantra are the same ones who have no compassion whatever for the jobs lost and lives destroyed at BP itself. It seems compassion, as Strupp points out, only extends to those who have votes.
Post a Comment