Personally I don't care much about the money in this circumstance, but it can/should help the survivors to some extent. What's more germane to this discussion is the pursuit of prosecutions of the executives at HQ who had a hand in the decision-making that led to this disaster. Those cretins should be tried for criminal negligence, voluntary manslaughter, or whatever criminal statute applies. If an individual killed that many folks, they'd potentially face the death penalty, why shouldn't a corporation?

An adjunct to this discussion:
The following is a link to a legal brief that seeks to strip corporations of their inappropriate constitutional protections. http://www.poclad.org/ModelLegalBrief.cfm
You'll love it...

Well, I'm one of those nuts that think the 14th amendment is illitimate, so I have no problem with stripping company's of its powers.

The protections afforded corporations, increasingly indistinguishable from those of individuals, have always made me uncomfortable. I hope this project moves forward to some degree.

Botnst

3,800 or 20,000 makes no difference. It's more than all the people that perished in the WTC event. Perhaps India should have declared UC terrorists and gone to war with the US for harbouring...

The Union Carbide subsidiary was majority owned by the parent company. The minority owner (about 49%) was the gov of India. It was run locally. When teh plant was built it was a long distance from habitation and the gov was supposed to keep it that way. Instead, bribery allowed squatters to live outside the fence. Also, the gov failed to enforce rules and regs for safety and so forth. The parent company in the USA turned blind-eye on the local management team (Indian) and didn't insist on following safety procedures.

At trial, the parent company was found to be responsible to a large degree and was forced to pay compensation to India and the gov of India was supposed to distribute the compensation.

Not that the gov of India was corrupt or anything.

One difference between UC and Al Queda that thoughtful folks may wish to consider is that UC wasn't malevolently intent on murdering innocents.

Just a thought.

Botnst

...whaaaa?

My those rose-colored glasses really do look great on you...

I heard something good happened one time. I didn't think it could possibly have happened so I investigated until I found something bad. That proves everything is always bad. I knew it.

With all the money that multinational corporations spend on PR, you wouldn't think they'd need independent apologists.

...let alone an entire chorus of independent apologists. I'm still trying to figure out the market mechanism behind this phenomena--I think it must be a form of pure altruism in action...

This is parodied in 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' (Robert Tressel), famous leftist book of the early 20th century. He described the (badly-clothed) poor's defence of the rich in Edwardian England as ragged-trousered philanthropy. I think there is still an element of truth in it.

NOW I get it!

Why sure, that's what it is...we socialists are the only people smart enough to see the nefarious, cynical hand of rampant capitalism. Everybody else is either a blinkered dolt refusing to see the truth or they are willing dupes. Thank goodness we're here to lead these witless ones to truth, even against their will.

Its amazing that so many, many people could be so blinded. The capitalist conspiracy has its tentacles ramified throughout every aspect of life, hoodwinking the poor sods into believing every lie.

Could there possibly be an alternative explanation?

Naaaah.

The world is as I believe it to be, no amount of witness nor evidence to the contrary will ever convince me otherwise.

There is no objective fact, only a vast grayness into which we inject our own truths. Our truths are no more than appetites, passions, and desires. After all, we are all nothing more than communal animals.

Botnst

Whether or not a few of us here recognize and accept what's going on, billions around the world ARE negatively experiencing the "nefarious, cynical hand of rampant capitalism." I would amend that statement to state that what they/we are experiencing is more accurately corporate capitalism, with its imperative on short-term profits and de-emphasis on community responsibility and accountability.

Have you ever seen ammonia in its gaseous form? I haven't, yet I've been awakened from a dead-sleep by the burning and choking sensation of its escaped vapors. I didn't know what was going on, but some of my shipmates did, and they helped me get to topside before I expired from disorientation induced by excess inhalation of that toxic substance.

Those guys weren't any smarter than me, but they were aware of what was going on and acted upon their awareness. Some of us who are similarly aware of the deleterious effects of the current economic model du jour believe it necessary to explain these facts to others who may not yet be aware of the creeping mists of our own ruination. Mock at will if you must, but the status quo is unsustainable and will eventually implode under the ponderous weight of its rank injustice.

Does that mean that the Greenpeace number is inaccurate?

I report, you decide.

But lets take a moment to guess.

Who counts bodies?
A. Insurance companies
B. lawyers
C. government
D. Greenpeace
E. The company

At trial, whose figures were accepted?
A. Insurance companies
B. lawyers
C. government
D. Greenpeace
E. The company

Unless we assume the general conspiracy theory of government-company collusion, I'd guess that the government was probably more accurate. If the gov lied, I guess they would have to pay-off or intimidate lawyers and the insurance companies.

I've never bribed nor intimidated anybody (okay, I've done both to my dog), so I haven't any idea whether its possible. It probably is. Lets ask some lawyers how often they're offered bribes and how much they get. Ditto insurance companies. Oh, they'll lie about that, too.

On the other hand, would Greenpeace have any reason to inflate the figures?

Botnst

Greenpeace and other organizations of thier "kind" would have MANY reasons to inflate the figures, and evidence suggests that they have fudged numbers on a regular basis, at times on a scale that would make an Enron bean-counter blush. All while wearing thier little green environmental halos of wholesomer-than-thou eco-morality.

:p

Mike

Damn, I'm proud of that one! ;) It hurt a little on the way out, it was so good! :p

Mike