--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > "I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good > > motivation here. They're naive! BP is trying to save money, > > save everything they can... They won't tell us anything, and > > oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! > > Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, 'These people... > > don't wish you well! They're going to take you down!'" --James > > Carville > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/obama-faces-new-wave-of-c_n_585620.html > > BP has managed to put itself between a rock and a hard > place, and it well deserves the agony it's going through. > > But Carville needs to chill. If he's going to opine on > this situation, he should inform himself about what's > actually going on and not add to the general confusion. > > The MSM has chosen its narrative--"The Gulf Is Doomed, > Starring Evil BP"--and is designing everything it reports > to support that narrative. > > There's very little that's cut-and-dried about this, > however, either for the government or for BP. > > Not that BP isn't evil in many ways. But at the moment, > it has virtually no choice about what it's doing. (Well, > except for letting its nitwit CEO mouth off.) > > Don't know if Carville is promoting the canard that BP is > trying to "save the well," but if he is, there's really > no excuse for it. > > *Nobody* wants to shut that well down more than BP does. > > And as far as trying to limit its liability is concerned, > it doesn't have any choice there either. It would be a > *felony*, in both the U.S. and Great Britain, for BP not > to do everything it can to limit its shareholders' losses, > including withholding what information it has about the > extent of the flow. (And if there's a criminal indictment > in the works, it's required *by law* to stop cooperating > with the government in any way.)
Given that BP must protect its bottom, has a right to withhold information, and has monitoring equipment and expertise that we don't have, how do we know they want to shut down the well or what the hell they're doing except what they tell us? Since no one knows what BP has up its pipe, Carville can flap his misinformed gums about it as much as any concerned citizen. From Carville to citizen activism (including boycotts) all were saying is "Don't trust BP," for exactly the reasons you outlined. Trust is a bottom line commodity. Why else would BP re-brand itself as "Beyond Petroleum" or be concerned they're taking a hit in the stock market or downplay the size of the environmental impact or on CNN today, trot out an Admiral in charge of the oil response operation saying, "I trust Tony Hayward?" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2226640420100523?type=marketsNews Boycott BP now has 62,877 members on Facebook. > > If Carville thinks there's something the government > should or could be doing about all that, he needs to say > what it is instead of just flapping his gums. > > There's a great deal of Oil Spill Theater going on from > the government side--both Congress and the administration-- > at this point. Put that together with the narrative the > media is promoting, and you get nonsense such as the > "independent experts'" claim that the oil flow is as much > as 95,000 barrels per day. Nuh-uh. The most productive > offshore wells in the Gulf produce under 40,000 barrels > per day, and that's without any of the obstructions that > exist at BP's leaking well. >
