posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:22 PM
hey, loveguy, the thread looks kind of bare right now and I know that's a pretty terrible pun, but I think you're approach is very worthwhile. I
was just reading the Haliburton site and damn, right away this pops up:
"So. First of all, let's define our words: what do we mean when we say "safety"? Well, for us in the corporate world, the most essential form of
safety is simply the safety to achieve what we need, as we need it, and how we need it.
Whether I'm in reconstruction, energy, manufacturing, or insurance, if I'm taking a risk, I want the government's hand to be pulling me safely over
the obstacles, not laying obstacles in my way. I want to be safe to minimize the risk to my investments as I see fit, without being told what's right
and what's wrong."
Now, I got an MA in history and am a yard short of my PhD, which is on the off-shoring of the semi-conductor industry in Silicon Valley. Part of my
research involved going to numerous industry conferences and just listening to try and deconstruct industry jargon and intent, MO, etc. I went to
college after 15 years as a carpenter and continued to work carpentry until my dissertation started and also MS set in, so even the summer jobs are a
no go these days and my carpentry days are over. But I have not exchanged my blue collar (maybe a backward collar if anything) and I still come at
issues intellectual or whatever with my working class sensibilities intact. So language like the above doesn't shock me but it does begin to backread
a blueprint for the operational basis of Haliburton for me.
When companies think they're exclusively or even mostly talking to themselves they are ridiculously transparent and forthcoming. The guys talking
surely all have college degrees, but they are the guys who were after econ or engineering degrees and think they have that whipped and that nobody
else is really going to care, because, hell, they didn't listen in history classes did they? It wasn't relevant to them. They expect the same toward
their knowledge field from other fields. That's a mistake and they don't expect that particularly educated former members of the working class even
exist, much less care about what they're doing.
So safety for Haliburton is about the right or opportunity to achieve what they want:
"Whether I'm in reconstruction, energy, manufacturing, or insurance, if I'm taking a risk, I want the government's hand to be pulling me safely
over the obstacles, not laying obstacles in my way. I want to be safe to minimize the risk to my investments as I see fit, without being told what's
right and what's wrong."
One thing people don't realize about this operation - Deep Horizon - is that they are not really regulated by the US at all. They're licensed out of
the Marshall Islands and operate under THEIR standards, their inspections. The MMIS is not going to f&%(k with them and if they come out to the rig,
it's to snort some meth, cruise the internet for porn, maybe for a couple of girls brought out by BP or Haliburton to entertain them. This is not
s)^%t, they just caught for that with the oil industry in Alaska and I happen to know that more than one regulatory agency in the Dept. of the
Interior work in similar fashion from research on the Forest Industry in Alaska. I don't know the Marshall Islands, but multinationals do not
register their operations offshore for stricter regulation.
So, I need to go back and read on these sites, but four paragraphs into the article its already clear that Haliburton does not want government in the
way, but they do WANT their help over obstacles. Where do you get that. The aforementioned cozy relationship with MMIS is one, but we also know the
bit H is an MIC operation, so other parts of the government can be helpful: the CIA, Naval Intelligence, Gov Contractors like Blackwater, of course.
I'm out of room here, but more later after I read on.