posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by LarryLove
It's interesting that you bring the political aspect of this up.
I have noticed that the MSM is categorizing this a 'political' news, and much of the MSM are focusing on the administrations posture with regards to
this. Yet it is about BP no? It is about what they have done in the past and how the practices exemplified in their actions bear consequences that
they can only address monetarily.
I'm not sure how the oil on the shores, and that which has yet to manifest its presence visibly, is political. I accept that people will take it as
they will. The choice of reaction to a simple sarcastic jab has me concerned that some ATS members are missing the forest for the trees.
I suppose that if this were a democracy one could call for a referendum on the banner. But it is not, and the free expression of ATS' administration
is no less sacrosanct than your own (or anyone else's).
I understand the concern, and can appreciate the sensitivity, but I have difficulty in embracing the all or nothing approach to the matter. Many are
defensive or aggressive on the subject, and rightfully so.
So why would the characterization of the company as an exploiter of nature for profit be so disruptive? This is a company that marketed itself as the
'greenest' of green. This company spent millions in ad campaigns to characterize itself as eco-friendly; yet they behave privately as if the
penny's they pinch were vital to their existence - much more important than responsible stewardship of the environment they exploit. The irony lies
in their choice of facade, which is precisely what this banner satirizes.
Like many other things, often that which is meant to agitate, can be countered by feigning offense. Are people really offended by this banner? Or
has it actually achieved it's goal and called attention to itself?
By the way, for the umpteenth time... there are no quotes involved.