Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoid
However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.
I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.
|
And besides the fact that some level of his portfolio has oil investment in it, as does every form of collective equity investment to be honest, what leads you to believe he "threw the game"? I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the majority of my argument where I covered Dyflon's points you just repeated in story form.
Again, you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not the decision was legally sound. If it wasn't, then maybe you have a point. If it was, you don't. But until we answer that question, making accusations about the judge's motivation is pointless.
While we are here, why not discuss the logic of the moratorium in the first place? While this accident was horrible, it is also exceedingly rare. Does it make sense to put all of these people out of work, and tie up millions in funds, to suspend an activity that the overwhelming evidence suggests is more than reasonably safe? There are nearly 4,000 oil rigs in the gulf alone, and this is the first disaster in how long?
Calling a moratorium on all oil rig exploration based on one accident on one rig by one company is absurd, especially considering how stellar the safety records of the other oil companies have been. Its the equivalent of recalling all cars produced in the 70's because the Ford Pinto blew up. Its a political move, meant to placate the anger of the masses, not a policy based on reason.