'If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people ...'

[Newsjock]

"... we'd have already invaded the wrong country. Since it's a corporation, carry on."

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. k&r

Perfect!

[malthaussen]

2. Hoo-rah! n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. No shit!

[marmar]

4. K and f**king R

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It is obvious that we need more deregulation and a tax cut for the extremely rich

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

to address this situation.

[christx30]

21. And stopping gay people from

thinking they're actually human beings by letting them get married.
That'll fix everything.

[MatthewStLouis]

75. Yes! Most certainly! To free their hands to do even more good!

[spanone]

6. no shit sherlock....pisses one off

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Too much truth.

I can't handle it!!!!

[NuclearDem]

8. Can't interrupt the wall-to-wall coverage of the same three Bridgegate emails

That's after all what really matters.

[lastlib]

28. ...or Honey Boo Boo........or duck-huntin' rednecks.......or Benghazi...or Kardashians.....

. .

[NuclearDem]

32. Pretty much all of the above.

Just in this case it's Bridgegate.

[KoKo]

9. We must always support and uphold the Corporations who Bring Wealth to Average Americans!

We depend on these companies to provide jobs and put food on the table. They are certainly not TERRORISTS...they have the good of Average American Workers always at the front of their Corporate Policy. They are Heavily Regulated and Monitored constantly.

We must learn to accept that "Things Happen...who Could Have Know?"

[NBachers]

10. If Al Qaeda had dumped one hundred fifty - 50 gallon drums of poison into an American river . . .

[Politicalboi]

11. Yeah but

When was the last time Al Qaeda created jobs?

[tkmorris]

13. What do you call all those mercs that went to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Not to mention jobs created throughout the MIC in general.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. I hate corporations in general. But that logic is just plain dumb.

Grasping at straws to prove a point that doesn't need to exist.

[RobertEarl]

14. Bwahahaha

I bet you hated Carlin?

[NuclearDem]

17. wat

[Gravitycollapse]

23. The comedian? How is that even relevant?

[Fumesucker]

53. The OP sounds very much like something Carlin would say

Imagine the difference in reaction if AQ had poisoned the water in an American community.

It would have been hysterical wall to wall coverage 24/7 and we would be already spending billions more to make sure that could never, ever happen again.

[angrychair]

20. Really?

while a touch hyperbolic, the point is no less valid. Given the current trend-line for incidents like this, the end result will be a very minor fine (pennies on the dollar compared to the damage and trouble it caused) and the likely firing of some poor hourly workers that have about as much control over the conditions at the site as the EPA does (none).
In short it is more about who is committing the crime and less about the crime itself. As long as your rich and white, its alright.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. That they'll get away with it is nearly certain. But the analogy is terrible.

Purposefully poisoning 300K people in an act of malicious intent is substantively different from letting 5000 gallons of toxic chemicals leak into a river because of negligence.

[jtuck004]

25. People had died and they were warned. Chose to put the people at risk. That was malicious.

It was negligence to put the plant there, put the chemicals into tanks that have always and forever leaked throughout history, next to a river that provided drinking water for the people.

It was malicious when "West Virginia Ignored Federal Regulations That Could Have Prevented Chemical Spill Catastrophe".
"The chemical and coal industries are extremely powerful in West Virginia: there are around 150 chemical companies that employ 12,000 workers, and coal mining employs tens of thousands more. "

http://www.alternet.org/west-virginia-ignored-federal-regulations-could-have-prevented-chemical-spill-catastrophe-0?akid=11399.1070909.8ykr53&rd=1&src=newsletter946608&t=19

They knew damn good and well and chose not to act, because the profit of the corporation was more important..

It is one thing to be driving down the highway at 120 mph and hit someone. You know better. It is malicious if you are stopped by the Highway Patrol and told to address the problem, but getting home to dinner on time is more important, so you put it at 120 again and plow into a school bus.

The only difference between the actions of the state/corporations (maybe that should be one word) and those of Al Qaeda would be their motivations and ends.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. I don't think you know the definition of malicious.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malicious
ma·li·cious adjective \mə-ˈli-shəs\
: having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person : having or showing malice

The only difference between the actions of the state/corporations (maybe that should be one word) and those of Al Qaeda would be their motivations and ends.

So basically what you're saying is essentially nothing would be the same between the two events except for the events themselves. That's like saying there's no fundamental difference between the 9/11 hijackers and a pilot that crashes a passenger jet because he was drunk. I mean, you could claim that but it would be a stupid thing to say.

Malice is not the same as indifference.

[jtuck004]

30. I don't need for you to rephrase what I said to fit your own meanings. I meant what I said.

The state didn't just go to sleep and forget to turn the alarm clock on. Unless you are saying they are not professionals, that they are incompetent clowns or perhaps mentally incapable of doing their jobs, then they embarked on a deliberate course of action and purposefully allowed a corporation to pursue behavior that harmed people AFTER they had been warned that such a course of action could harm people.

That's fucking malicious, and all your excuses don't make it anything else.

But I don't expect everyone to see it. There are just too many more concerned about whether their Master's house will burn down than their own. Too many.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. Words have meaning. You don't just get to fabricate definitions to suit your argument.

There is a fundamental difference between negligence and malice. The difference is negligence represents an indifference to harm while malice represents a specific intent to cause harm. Legally, ethically, philosophically, even logically, the two are different. This is why the comparison is so utterly ridiculous.

So, no, the company's negligence, while gross, is not the same as malice. They had no intention to cause harm. And that is an important concept to understand.

I'm not twisting your words. You're just abusing the English language.

[jtuck004]

34. Beats abusing 300,000 people in West Virginia. n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

35. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!!!!!!

[eggplant]

38. Would "depraved indifference" work for you then?

The comparison is valid. AQ would have done it for their own political goals. The people actually responsible did it because of simple greed. Both are self-serving acts that harm innocent people.

This wasn't an accident. It was a company intentionally turning a blind eye to their real responsibility to the safety of that town. "Sorry that your dog died, but just because I left out bowls of antifreeze doesn't make it my fault." Well, yes, actually it does.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. Is nuance dead?

Can you not understand that a lack of malice doesn't mean a lack of responsibility? That negligence is itself demonstrative of culpability?

This is why we can't have nice things. In a never ending quest to vilify, we become desensitized to actual villainy. Any wrong must immediately be compared to something of greater grotesqueness.

What this company did, or really didn't do, is a sufficient indictment. They aren't terrorists. They don't need to be terrorists to do such terrible things. And that's why this comparison is still so utterly dumb and meaningless.

[blackspade]

45. They poisoned the water of 300,000 people.

How is that not villainy?
Just because something is not immediately lethal doesn't make it any less grotesque.
Terrorists, community destroyers, poisoners, whatever.
You can call them whatever you want but the end goal is the same, social control for their own benefit.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. It is exactly villainy. That is what I'm saying...

That we don't need to try and make it equal to terrorism for it to be villainous. To do so is, in the end, vacuous. It's a waste of time trying to establishing the wrongness of an act that is self-evident.

[me b zola]

50. For me, I didn't read that poster as saying that we should make it equivalent to terrorism

...but how we as a society react to different threats...and what is the real threat. IMO, we should be more afraid of the real and immanent danger of corporations, the threat of terrorism is not so much on my personal radar.

[dreamnightwind]

67. Thanks, exactly the point of the OP

but someone here would rather argue some other point, divertting attention from the real threat, hmmm...

[cui bono]

86. Extremely well said and spot on! n/t

[noiretextatique]

88. i think the point is: if it were terrorism

committed by some brown foreign person, it would actually be a crime worthy of going to war, probably with the wrong country. it is and will be business as usual because a corporate "person" committed the crime.

[jtuck004]

40. Oh yeah, and - malice n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing

either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred, or total disregard for the other's well-being.

You want to be concerned about the use of the English language, you should also be concerned about those who try to hide parts of it to suit their agenda.

They don't HAVE to intend harm, but simply have a total disregard for the other';s well-being. As in being aware that tanks leak, that there are chemicals (identified by MSDS sheets on the premises of EVERY business that is complying with a shitload of Federal and State laws), and well within the actions of a state which intentionally and completely disregards the well-being of 300,000 people AFTER being warned of the danger by a competent authority, the Federal government.

Nothing different than leaving a loaded gun on the dresser for the kid to get at. No ill-will involved, but a complete disregard for their well-being - and that makes it malicious.

I could understand Al Qaeda - at least they are enemies. The state is supposed to be on the citizens side.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. You're wrong. Malice must include the intent to harm. That is the definition.

In a battle between you and the dictionary and legal definition, you're going to lose. You've already lost.

As I've said already, you don't get to fabricate definitions to suit your argument. And no matter how many times you repeat something that is incorrect, it never becomes more correct.

[jtuck004]

42. Man, this is like trying to convince a teabaggger that Obama is a U.S. citizen, with

the birth certificate in hand...

In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind&quot , R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:

In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:

an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).

Believe what you will. C'est la vie,

y

disfrutar del eco.

[Gravitycollapse]

43. If only all arguments could be won using Wikipedia.

[dreamnightwind]

66. This one certainly was. - nt

[infoviro]

81. Oh snap!

More that gravity collapsed on that one, GC's whole argument did.

[dreamnightwind]

82. Welcome to DU

[noiretextatique]

89. silly argument: you think they did not "intend" harm?

they probably figured it would be cheaper to pay damages than to fix the problem. all with the blessing of their bought and paid for politicians.

[heaven05]

71. what you're doing

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

is distraction and an obfuscating of the point that some corporations, in their pursuit of profit, could care less about the damage done to the common citizen, especially if the common citizen is not a buyer or user of their product. The lack of caring in this case, given the facts, IS malicious. Their overall quality control and safety procedures were nonexistent for this to happen. You're confusing your need to protect the corporate image, for whatever motive, with our need to protect ourselves from corporate malfeasance and malicious negligence. Your defense of motives behind this utterly ridiculous and shameful incident, that put hundreds of thousands at risk, leaves your understanding of the initial point twisting in the wind.

[tclambert]

33. On "Law and Order" they use the phrases "reckless endangerment" and/or "criminally negligent"

to describe manslaughter, a slightly lesser charge than murder, the charge which purposefully poisoning people permits. (Couldn't resist the alliteration.)

If, however, they had committed a felony which resulted in someone dying, felony murder might apply.

But then, has anyone actually died? I'm not sure what Jack McCoy would charge anyone with if the victims just got nauseous.

[cui bono]

85. It's not mere negligence. Decisions were made, I'm sure, to cut certain costs in the name of profit.

That's not negligence. That's corporate greed. It is criminal.

[FatBuddy]

51. you can tell how truthful something is by how much it pisses off quislings

and reactionaries

[Enthusiast]

61. Funny that the rest of us see it as perfectly logical.

We are deficient that way.

[Historic NY]

15. F R E E D U M B I N D U S T R I E S ...

like Al Qaeda only here in the US.

[gopiscrap]

16. No kidding!

Very well put!

[BlueLuna743]

18. Invaded

Keep your eyes on the ball - the WHY. Follow the money - as always is the case. The MSM continues to barely cover the WV water nightmare while keeping the Christie ball rolling. I was shocked over the weekend to see CNN headlining Rodman in North Korea while I had to search for internet coverage of the WV disaster.

Even NPR this evening chose to highlight a family that sounded like a Libertarian dream-machine. I swear to god they've been beat so long from coal-history they don't even realize when a crisis is just the NEW normal for them.

Nestle desires to purchase your water. Your WATER. We couldn't stop it in Africa - please stop it in your back rard.

Dub Master C rules my world.

[Brigid]

19. Now this is what Stephen Colbert would call . . .

Truthiness.

[2banon]

24. Indeed. So True. k&r'd

[AzDar]

27. Sadly, soooo effing true.

[SoapBox]

29. K & R

[tclambert]

36. Yes, but the corporation may have made a penny more of profit, so it's all OK.

Free market principles. If a business does it in order to increase profits, well, . . . la-de-da.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, isn't in it for the money. So they are evil or possibly socialist. Now if Al Qaeda had an IPO and started selling stock on Wall Street, then terrorism for profit would just become another business model.

[MindMover]

37. and maybe that company was paid by bottled water companies to poison

the water ... to sell more bottled water .... corporations , carry on ....

[blackspade]

44. Internets win.

[jsr]

46. Who can attack Freedom Industries?

[Cha]

48. K!

[Th1onein]

49. OMG. That is the truth!

Thank you for posting this!

[malaise]

52. Nailed it

Rec

[another_liberal]

54. The Free Market will correct this just fine.

Once those 300,000 people are either dead or fled, that corporation will have no work force and will go out of business. The free market rules! Or maybe the corporation will just move to a new locale, one where they need jobs and the population isn't poisoned yet? Either way, the free market will handle it.

[Locrian]

55. no silly

It's only terrorism when you PROTEST against big business. What are you ? Some sort of commie?!!

tag, just because, well, you know ...

[TBF]

56. That's brilliant! nt

[DLevine]

57. K&R. nt

[Sienna86]

58. Why is this not domestic terrorism?

A reasonable person should have known this leak would physically harm people.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. If It Turns Out That There Was Willful Neglect. . .

. . .it is.
GAC

[truedelphi]

93. Because in one simple statement - both Parties have been

Bought and Paid for by their Puppet Masters, The One Percent..

Meanwhile outside of West Virginia, at least four states have problems with contaminated water from the fracking operations:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

[theHandpuppet]

59. Can't recommend this enough.

[Enthusiast]

60. Recommended X 1000!

Yet the push for fewer regulations and less enforcement continues.

[tanyev]

62. Pretty much the same angle Jason Jones took on Jon Stewart last night.

That was a pretty good segment.

[merrily]

63. More corporate tax cuts are on the table as we post.

"Grand" bargain.

[Mass]

64. Perfect example of "elections have consequences".

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

People in West Virginia insist on electing people who are against regulations. So, regulations are at their minimum. You see the consequences here.

[Harmony Blue]

70. Most of the people in West Virginia

don't understand the world outside of their own. So I can't blame them for not being able to think big picture.

[Octafish]

65. When was the last time their operations were inspected by EPA?

Never? Ever? Decades ago?

Also speaking to the Wall Street Journal, spokeswoman for West Virginia American Water Co. Laura Jordan stated that the Etowah River site had been identified as needing to provide a source water protection plan as early as 2002. The facility, which has changed hands between various operators in the intervening period, remained off-the-grid to various state and federal regulators.

SOURCE: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/01/14/free-j14.html

[KansDem]

69. "If Al-Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people, backed by the Saudi Royal Family...

...who were friends and business partners with the president's family, while the president sat and did nothing as thousands of Americans were dying, and who later didn't recall how he first learned about the poisoning, we'd have already invaded the wrong country..."

[infoviro]

72. Corporate terror

[colorado_ufo]

73. Moment of truth!

Sadly profound.

[myrna minx]

74. Sad but true. K&R n/t

[B Calm]

76. Hell if an individual citizen of the US did this, the person would be behind bars

and facing terrorism charges. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, so why in the hell isn't the CEO of this filthy company behind bars?

[raouldukelives]

83. I often wondered during the BP disaster what would happen if I strolled down to the beach

and in full view of authorities dumped a quart of motor oil in it.
I wondered if my punishment would exceed that of BP executives. I am quite positive it would.

[BlueCaliDem]

77. Infuriating, isn't it? And here I thought the oath of office read, "Enemies, foreign AND domestic".

Corporations, and their lackeys among some Democrats and ALL Republicans, are the domestic enemies that are literally killing the American people. The sad thing is? The masses don't even see it anymore.

[City Lights]

78. Bingo.

Corporations rule the world.

[uponit7771]

79. +1

[ctsnowman]

80. Excellent!

[drokhole]

84. Jon Stewart did a great bit on this...

http://on.cc.com/1ePW62x

[B Calm]

87. It's time to waterboard the CEO!

[blkmusclmachine]

90. Mission Accomplished

[Sand Wind]

91. Al Qaeda will take note...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. But, don't you know the main enemy of America is the anti-capitalist leftists?

[warrprayer]

94. Almost Heaven

I hate what they do to people....

[BlancheSplanchnik]

95. + a zillion. n/t