There has been considerable controversy over BP preventing journalists and activists to film in public areas — showing the damage of the recent spill on animals and the environment. BP has no authority to do so, but it continues (as in this video) to prevent filming at various locations.
The video shows Drew Wheelan, the conservation coordinator for the American Birding Association, was filming himself across the street from the BP building/Deepwater Horizon response command in Houma, Louisiana. He is approached by an officer (who we learn later is working for BP):
Wheelan: “Am I violating any laws or anything like that?”
Officer: “Um…not particularly. BP doesn’t want people filming.”
Wheelan: “Well, I’m not on their property so BP doesn’t have anything to say about what I do right now.”
Officer: “Let me explain: BP doesn’t want any filming. So all I can really do is strongly suggest that you not film anything right now. If that makes any sense.”
Wheelan says that he was later pulled over by the same officer and another officer named Kenneth Thomas with a badge reading “Chief BP Security.” He was allegedly questioned and Thomas confiscated his Audubon volunteer badge.
The deputy was off-duty at the time and the story below reports that Major Malcolm Wolfe of the sheriff’s office insisted that there was nothing wrong in an officer working for a private company to use his police car to pull over citizens. The story says Wolfe thought it was a proper use of a vehicle because Wheelan could be a “terrorist.” He should rest assured. With the possible exception of the 9-11 attacks, no terrorist in history has caused the type of property and environmental damage as BP.
If BP contests these facts, it should do so clearly and publicly. As it stands, this is a truly frightening story.
Source: Mother Jones
Nationalism is A component of fascism, Byron. Not THE defining component of fascism. If you want to know what THE prime characteristic of fascism is you need look no further than Mussolini’s preferred term for the worst idea in the world:
Corporotism
Corporations are fictions used by sociopaths to avoid responsibility for their crimes (not their intended purpose but their real application). When corporations make the rules and get preferential treatment that places them in a superior position of rights as contrasted with natural individual citizens?
That’s fascism.
“The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .””
American Heritage Dictionary 1957
And I feel the same way Baseball does.
mespo,
I am keeping that in mind and I still say $20B is a drop in the bucket before this is resolved (if it ever is). Currents circulate and damage spreads. And when the peoples of Canada and Iceland are damaged (they will be next in line for the oil to reach them, they are far less likely to be sold out to the corporotists than Americans.
The $20B is a facade at taking responsibility. A bribe so BP isn’t put into receivership as it should have been.
Mespo and George:
Woosty’s still a Cat thankfully posted this by Professor
by G. William Domhoff. The Relationship Between Wealth and Power is demonstrated in tables 5a & 5b.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
Woosty’s still a Cat thanks again.
Mespo,
I’ve been enjoying the discussion, but must disagree on one point:
“What controls massive economic interests is the collective will of the people as expressed and actuated by the coercive power of democratic government.”
In my opinion, the thing that controls “massive economic interests” is not the “collective will of the people.” It is the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, and the big mega banks through lobbyists and bureaucratic plants like Geithner, et al.
And, frankly, I don’t even know what to say about the “coercive power of democratic government.” Seems to me between ideological political party primaries and the need to constantly fundraise from wealthy, corporate interests, the people have not been properly represented in a long time and the system at this point is compromised.
JIll:
“There are many types of fascism. This govt. is one. It most closely resembles the rule of Mussolini and Peron. Fascism occurs when the state works on behalf of corporations.”
***************
Sorry, Jill, but you don’t get to make up the meanings of political systems to suit your argument, or misstate history to prove a point. Fascism has at its core principle an uber-nationalism in which every entity in a society (and most especially the economic interests) works and sacrifices on behalf of the government — not the other way around as you suggest. As Swarthmore Mom correctly pointed out Mussolini, who created fascism, took pains to reduce powers of unions in an effort to create a corporatist (not corporate) utopia even as he sought to recreate the days of Roman empirical glory. He did the same in his dealings with corporations.
In 1935, Mussolini bragged that 75% of Italian businesses were under state control. He also forced all banks, businesses, and private citizens to give up all their foreign-issued stocks and bonds to the Bank of Italy. In 1938, he instituted wage and price controls. These are not the workings of a man pandering to strong economic interests.
What you are decrying is corporate oligarchy, which other commentators have artfully described. You may have valid concerns about the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few multi-national corporations which could pervert the political process, but to advocate, what you now contend, are non-violent means to combat this problem is a tad naïve. Sit-ins and boycotts will have no effect against private multi-billion dollar enterprises whose raisons d’être are simply to make money. What controls massive economic interests is the collective will of the people as expressed and actuated by the coercive power of democratic government. If your real claim is that this is the political principle potentially being subverted here, then fine, we agree. However, to suggest that we are a fascist state is neither factually accurate nor particularly enlightening in the discussion.
BIL:
“One that calculates the costs in a style reminiscent of the Ford Pinto fiasco. 20B is nothing compared to what the final bill will be.”
***************
Recall that the $20B is only the victims fund to pay economic claims. The clean-up costs are not included nor is the reimbursement to the government for its costs.
Swarthmore mom
There is a rumor that Obama will get rid of Biden and make Hillary vp so you might get your wish.
==================================================================
If true then it can only be to help set her for 2016 … interesting …
Don’t interrupt our fair leaders with minor complaints, especially when they are trying to eat their custard.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/26/biden_calls_manager_who_told_him_to_lower_taxes_a_smartass.html
There is a rumor that Obama will get rid of Biden and make Hillary vp so you might get your wish.
Blouise:
“And now I’m going to go way out on the limb as one Democrat to another … when Obama is finished serving his term (or terms)and time has kicked in, I would not be at all surprised if the general consensus is: Hillary would have been better.”
I was saying that to my wife just the other day, Hillary looks like a Disraeli next to this shmoo.
Jill,
I kid about Gabriel, but I do think he’d too be a fine President as long as he never missed his “T-time”. That’d be T for Tuna. All work and no t-time makes G a grumpy kitty. Otherwise he’s one of the smartest cats I’ve ever seen. He sure loves his daddy (and grandma). Which is good because at 24#, he’s big enough to be a real killer. He’s a Norwegian Forest cat with a mink coat. Egypt on the other hand? He’s really sweet – a real lover boy for a black with white fleck cat-cat. But a little on the slow side. Still smarter than W though.
We do have some fine pets moving through the blog. Finer by far than the pols. I’m glad the Prof instituted the Pet of Week feature. It has made the ever bleaker weeks upon end somewhat lighter than they might have been otherwise.
Buddha,
I’ll vote for your cats, my cats, Charlie and all the other sweet pets we’ve seen on this blog! Demands to catch fish aren’t that bad!!
Jill,
I’m with you. I’ll vote for Obama again when Hell freezes solid. By the same token, I’ll vote for someone self-identifying as a member of the GOP (or worse – Tea Baggers) at about the same time. Unless we have a viable third party candidate or independent, I don’t intend to vote in the next Presidential election. I hope Kucinich goes independent and runs again. I’ll work my fingers bloody for him if he does. However, I believe the best person for the job should be at least as ethical and duty bound to the Constitution as I am. But right now? Everyone in the queue is far less ethical or duty conscious (except the duty to their own over inflated egos) than either of my cats.
And one of my cats only lets us peons live on his planet because we’ll catch the fish for him.
Smom,
“Politics is about winning. Ask Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.”
SB
“Socipathic politics is about winning at any cost. Ask Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.”
And
I hope Karl is having a drink with Lee real soon.
Swarthmore mom,
The only way to change how our society looks at torture is to not accept anyone into our governing class who engages in or justifies it. Once a person in office has approved torture or imprisoned the innocent (for example), these actions are so evil that it should not be in our minds to vote for them. They should be ruled out from the beginning.
I am going to say something harsh, not because I am trying to be cruel. Voting for Obama is approving of torture. It’s allowing it to continue and go unpunished. I know that most Democrats think all the people who voted for Bush were evil, but that wasn’t my experience. These were good people who told me basically the same thing you just did, only in reverse. They thought Kerry was so bad they had no choice but to vote for Bush. They were terrified that a “liberal” would get into office and ruin our nation. I found this difficult to understand because it was very clear Bush and Cheney were already ruining our country. I couldn’t understand how they couldn’t see how dangerous these men were, but they didn’t. They were so fear stricken that they wouldn’t even look at what their own people were doing.
Now it’s the Democrats who are in power, engaging in the same evil, but Democrats are so terrified of Republicans that they would rather countenance the evil of their own people than have a Republican win. IMO, we must reject this way of thinking. Certain actions should rule out a candidate and Obama has done things that should clearly keep him out of office. Instead we must seek out people who will not engage in immoral and illegal actions. We have tried voting for the lesser of evils, it is time to try voting for the good. Of course there is no guarantee this strategy will make things better but here is why I believe it will.
Even if the candidates do not win, we as a people have rejected the acceptability of our leaders committing acts that shock the conscience, that destroy the rule of law. We have begun the process of changing our own hearts and minds. A nation isn’t just its leaders, it’s its whole people. We can be better as a whole people. We need to be better. We are desperate for a new way of being in the world. I think we should take that chance.
Well Swathmore mom,
Knowing Jim personally, I am pleased that you would want to put me in the same class as he. He is a decent man and well respected. He is from Denison, Texas which is just North of Sherman. I worked for the majority leader at that time.
As was pointed out in an earlier post, the name or title of conservative/liberal is not as determinative as the individual person. It is what they do that matters. Republican and the most corrupt, they say one thing and then do another. Ronald was the greatest smoke and mirror mans that ever lived. While spending the country into a Star Wars he was talking about the Liberal Democrats and fat cats that want to take all of your hard earned money. At the same time spending and creating a deficit that could never be paid down at the time.
What the deficit is is what it is, at least Clinton had the decency to at least balance the budget. Can any Republican claim to have done that at least once in the last 40 years?
Swarthmore mom,
The beauty of the contest between Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower is that now, decades after America voted for the war hero, whenever Eisenhower’s presidency is discussed, Adlai’s name is raised.
One finds that sort of thing within discussions about the founding father’s presidencies (who ran against whom) and perhaps Lincoln’s presidency but that’s about it … well, okay, Truman and Dewey (but only because of the headline).
Your mother, whom I assumed has passed, would be proud. Adlai Stevenson was, in my opinion, the better man for the job.
And now I’m going to go way out on the limb as one Democrat to another … when Obama is finished serving his term (or terms)and time has kicked in, I would not be at all surprised if the general consensus is: Hillary would have been better.
Politics is about winning. Ask Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.