Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Corporate accountability. BP: Crude Realities. Obligation to the sick. Damages Recalculated.

Corporate accountability.

Damages.  Recalculate.
All is not Economic. 
Crude Realities. 

1.  Anyone causing illness in others, reduction in employability, must pay for the privilege.

2.  Anyone substantially and for profit reduces others' quiet enjoyment of their environment and other essential aspects of human life, must pay for the privilege.

3.  If you are a public or private nuisance, you pay.

Why is this so difficult?  Smaller government means bigger corporations; and what has our experience been with accountability in that scenario? 

You act, you cause negative impact, you pay.
BP and any other toxic employer:  Pay for our sick, and those who become sick,
See Gulf Oil Spill Health Hazards at ://;

What are the losses:  Immeasusrable.
Lives diminished from loss of place, way of life. 
Lives made sick from trying to clean up your Gulfitudinous Horror;
Or just from being there, and exposed to it.

1.  Ads are paid propaganda.

BP multimillion dollar PR ad to assure us that they will make "it" right.

What is "it". Nothing.

BP in its ads says it will make things related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill "right".  It lists what it will make "right" -- including wildlife.  BP gives no details: what do those words mean. What scope? What measures? And there is no reference to healing the health of people damaged by the crude, inhaled, absorbed, consumed. Why should our nascent healthcare system have to take on entire populations seeking care because of corporate malfeasance.

Nothing that BP says it will make "right" means anything to people's health. Making right is a cloud, words to serve and placate, limit calculations based on provable income, until people forget. Life is more than income. Is that so? 

For the corporation, making something right means only to get back to where profits are to be made, and fast, regardless of whether anything or anyone is really made "right". Is that so?

Prove us wrong.  BP: Amend your ad recurring in the New York Times ad that lists things you intend to make right. Wildlife and all that gunk cleanup, on water, in swamps, on beaches. Add humans.

2.  BP:  Health must be a compensable damage element.

Add people's health to the compensable damages list. Even if the person is not employed, is not employable, but is simply living.

We on behalf of humans and all breathing and finny and feathered demand to be included in Wildlife as restoration to health and population levels ante, and functioning. That  is what it takes to be fully restored, health looked after by you after your diseasemanship.

What does BP mean or intend by its simplistic list. Just lists of the dead, like the plague. Bring our your dead! We will count you and bury you and grieve, but, of course, for a price.
  • Look at the health-damaging, life-threatening, disease-causing disasters you are creating within human bodies. See
  • People, ordinary people without clout, demand (look at us little people demanding, how declasse, that you take care of all of us who have inhaled, ingested, are related to those whose burdens are then passed on to us, been exposed to, whose unborn kids are whatever because of it, take responsibility there as well.
And so we do.  We even have extended to Tampa relatives the space to tide them over while the Tampa evacuation plan is set up for when they have to burn in Tampa Bay.  Will you reimburse us for all that we will do for our family in food and transportation and general dislodgement because of your criminal  negligence. Even just because you caused it. Strict liability.

BP to pay for the sick and the to-be-sick. Until they die.  No medical bills.  Pay cash. Put it into trust funds.  In advance. Just give us your open-ended debit card.  Thx. And for the tracking of the health of all involved in the cleanup or exposed as being in the area, as to their health needs. And pay that. Toodles.

Thank you, corporate nothings. Your ad is a fraud.  And to you whose bottom lines are not particularly affected over time, especially you, good night.

3. Right of quiet enjoyment of premises, quiet enjoyment of life.  

Drilling is a public nuisance. And a private nuisance.  See  And can be a trespass.

Against corporate usurpers, profiteers. A violent trespass against us all.

Quiet enjoyment of premises. A renter's right. We all are temporary on this coil.  Give us that right against corporations.

Loss of income is inadequate. Quality of life counts. Some of us seek a modest life, enough, our family, a sensible retirement, good food, health care that fits our needs for care and a dignified, pain-free, as self-directed an end as we can possibly manage, chemical-free nutrition if we want it, shelter, clothing.  Reasonable transportation to jobs. National wireless and a reasonable minimal laptop to find them,  Kids: readin'  ritin' rithmetic, razzmatazz as their generation may foster,  and tapping to talk to friends. Just that, for us. Keep your casinoyachtshedgefunds.

A good life. We just want to have one. A decent, unexploited one. A life. Pay out life-disruption damages. The Committee on Calculation of Life-Disruption Quiet Enjoyment Damages will convene tomorrow at a place accessible only by tunnel from -- what?

There is no place safe from the Crude?

Sunday, June 6, 2010

The Busted Pelican. Kill At Will? Disregard for Non-Human Life

BP and Accountability for Non-Human Life 
Loss of non-human life forms. Why should we care about the Busted Pelican?  Is its death at the disregard of BP, and other Oily ones, of no account because those lives did not earn "income". Only the tourist industry benefits, is that so?  Put them all into a bland category: the "environment".  This is a look at how our culture arrived here: on a fast religious train. The role of religion in human supremacism. Man and his corporations as the economic animal.

What is the origin of our beliefs that we can kill other life forms, at will, as a property right, perhaps. As an adjunct to making profit. Drop the still living cow into the boil.  Sizzle the sea turtles.  See ://  Who to blame but us.

So:  Look at the role of our religions in our self-centeredness, saying we have souls and other forms do not (not so, according to earliest transliterations, but the spin took hold). Or that we have them for meat, that requires death; and expand that doing the happy dance for sport hunting from helicopters, chasing the panicked. No getting in their way, zygotic all-powerful pinpricks as they are.  And then claim that there is "sanctity" to our lives, even at the zygote stage, ye gods, and where did that idea come from anyway, just from "image" to sanctity?  Are we kidding.
    Cultures have every right to say and do as they can, and will through their lawmakers, but can they claim a religious ground?

    I.  Overview.  

    Fast forward to some conclusions:
    • Genesis gave animals and fish and birds to humankind as "food" and, yes, they do have souls according to the texts. See Where in the world did we get sanctity for human life?. They would be in fear of humankind, but humankind is given no blanket permission to kill to get it. Instead, Adm is to Name them.  No depersonalizing. These are relationships. Milk, eggs, leather from ones who kicked the bucket, all ok.  Kill for fun, sport, the mere discretionary steak, no.  Is the prohibition against eating "flesh" that broad?  The transliterations so suggest. See Hunter and Literalism: Genesis
    • Exodus and Deuteronomy - we think of the commandments as do not kill.  But here is the license:  they do not prohibit "killing" per se.  Only "murder" is prohibited.  That leaves open preemptive strikes against those outside the clan?  Experts, to your texts.  Beyond us.  But it does mean that in order for abortion to be prohibited, it has to be defined as "murder" to be part of the religious picture.  Cultures do as they want, but the original religious ground looks iffy here.
    II.  The Texts

    Follow the path from no flesh to be eaten, to this fantasy:  that the critters are for us as meat. And to Commandments that specify meat cooking in rituals, and provide for sacrifices.  Does anyone else suspect a cultural influence here?

    No meat, all ye overladen. It doesn't say you get to eat meat and kill for it. Much less hop in a copter and blast 'em for fun of it.

    But the Hunter Lobby won out over the Commands. As they always do?Prohibitions against killing, and mindsets allowing killing, are interesting  What are they, where did they come from.  When they get in the way, they get tiresome. We already know the answers to these vital matters:
    • Is Bambi's mother dinner.
    • Is hunting for sport justified, as the right of the powered to their vir-ulent diversions. 
    • What matters, if anything, as to the fact or manner of deaths of sentient beings not human. 
    • Pelicans and oysters against lucre?  Come, now.
    How did we get there, from the major teachings-records of our cross-cultural cultures and religions.  People of the Book: Look where we started, and how we boot-strapped ourselves to get what we want.

    A.  Translations, transliterations and the Hunter-Macho-Priestly-Property Lobby

    These promoted the cultural value of eating meat, requiring a dead animal, and usually made that way (why does this appear to be so?) by rampaging, bonding males.

    A.1  Genesis transliteration, Creation. 

    No hunting allowed.  No killing for sport.

    A.2  Genesis transliteration, Noah: 
    when things began anew, Post-Ark

    Genesis 9:2-6.

    This includes the part about living things fearing the human, comes their uses:  see full context at ://  We see no authority for slaughter, sport killing.  The incidentals of an animal come for food, but no killing to get it?  We are looking literally here.

     There is no versing in the originals. We offer fair use of small portion of the entire transliteration of the Old Testament-- and add emphases by italics, divisions into customary verses by backslash.

    " ***  and fear of you and dismay of you he shall become on every of animal of the earth and on every of flyer of the heavens in all which she is moving the ground and in all of fishes of the sea in hand of you they are given / every of moving (animal) which he life to you he is becoming for food as green(s) herbage I give to you all / yea flesh in soul of him blood of him not you shall eat / and yea blood of you for souls of you I shall require from hand of every of animal I shall require him and from hand of the human from hand of man of brother of him I shall require soul of the human / one shedding of blood of the human in (the) human blood of him he shall be shed that in image of Elohim he made the human / *** "
    So the animals and fish will be timid, in fear, but they are "food as green(s) herbage" -- no slaughtering, no killing.  The animals and fish have souls (!) and "flesh in soul of him blood of him not you shall eat".  No flesh, folks.  Not even if well-done.  Flesh not. Like it or not.

    And do the animals take revenge if we do? This gets complicated, but this is what we have. Be your own teacher.
    • Note that "Human" is "adm" and that "Man" is Aish.  That looks to us like different concepts:  one, not a "male" as opposed to "female" but the other is.   Does that mean the image is bi-this and bi-that, and no shedding their blood? Homophobes?
     Watch the whole "human" idea get subsumed to the "Man Macho Male" idea that really only gets mentioned once here.  See the evolution away from the generic, and even many-faceted adm to "the man", see Human Divides into Aishe and Ashe: Tsela.

    Is this what it says, that Elohim made the Human in his image; Adm the precursor to the First Pair; but not "Man".

    Ya gotta love transliteration.  "Truth" unfettered, but perhaps all truth is unknowable. Partners or exploiters.  The choice of path evolved.

    Speaking of commands:

    A.3  Exodus and Deuteronomy transliterations, 
    Commandments - what prohibitions against killing?

     a)  Exodus 20:13 --

    "Not you shall murder"  - See ://

    This is in the whole listing of commandments. There is no prohibition at Exodus 20:13 on any and all kinds of killing, only if it is "murder" --What is the definition of murder from earliest times. Does that bind us as an Originalist would have it?

    Where does that put abortion issues, conservative religions?  What did murder mean back then, for those who are Originalists?  Was murder only applicable to in-clan killings? Or to any man or woman? 

    b)  Exodus 34:11-27 (and see 28) -

    This is another set of commandments, more cultural and ritualistic.  No seething the animal in its mother's milk.

    But no prohibition on killing, even murder; and even here we have sacrifices all over. Very different. Inconsistent.  In Genesis, there was no obligation to worship, no sacrifice, no homage.  And look at the shape all that took millenia later.  The Hunter-Herder Property Lobby?

    c) Deuteronomy 5:17.

    Here is another set of commandments.  "Not you shall murder" - as in Exodus 20:13.  Translated, however, in the margin translation, as the customary, Thou shalt not kill.  That is not what it says. No murder.  Need to define that if we are to stay true to sources.  Can we rest laws against abortion on prohibitions against murder?  What laws need to be revised to make that work.  Just asking. Or just admit that the religious perspective is largely irrelevant?  That cultures do what they want and make the religion fit?

    Deuteronomy 10:4 (aptly versed)

    B.  Prohibitions against killing? 

    Genesis Creation recap - Creatures have souls, and can be for food,
    but no affirmative provision for "meat" - that would require killing.
    No worship, no sacrifice

    Exodus - don't "Murder"
    But watch all the sacrifice and ritual allowed for meat by then

    Where does that leave the Pelican, the Busted Pelican. What does it take to change a cultural mindset, from sentient beings as property, to rights of sentient beings as partners on the planet.

    Time to see culture as the driving force it is, and our obsession with profit has nothing to do with "religion."
    Still, for the creatures that do have souls - it says so - go ahead and butt in and buck the cultural tide for rights of all sentient beings. Can reasoning ever outmaneuvre the cultural emotionalism of Guns, Oil and Incorporating in Delaware or Offshore - like the Marshall Islands (Deepwater chose that one). No, but the idea is worth the dedication of effort.