I don't find it necessarily questionable. I just don't understand what they are trying to say. They can't seem to focus on any 1 or 2 points nor do they include any form of summary. Nor do they form a conclusion. So I just don't know what to make of it. Even if everything they say is true, and I have no reason to disagree with their "facts", the piece is still meaningless without some broader context to place it in. And the title has little to do with the content.
Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 6:01 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: it's not about the oil <g> don't you think some of it sticks? Just curious. Granted, yes, it is a fast pass through too much stuff and some of the sources would be questionable to someone on the right (Greenpeace for example), it is at least highly suggestive and so far what I have tried to verify does verify. Dana Andy Ousterhout writes: > Dana, > > You can do better than this. Rambling, interesting, but basically a > meaningless bitch session. .Doesn't the author believe in a thesis statement > and an organized discussion that drives to some point? Any point. Heck, pick > 2-3 points and then connect them. > > It appears that the author is just throwing facts up against the wall and > hoping that something sticks. For example.... > > "A 1997 prepared by an Oak Ridge analyst for the Department of Energy > estimated the 1996 military cost of defending oil supplies in the Middle East > range -- in peacetime -- at $32 billion. (Patricia Hu) The cost of war in Iraq > has been estimated at $50 to $100 billion, paid largely by the American > taxpayer, unlike the first Gulf War where America had significant help from > allies. "This time we'll probably pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the war > ourselves," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution." > > So what's the net of this? Break even in 2-3 years? If so, this is a good > investment. Ok, how about ... > > "CEOs in general receive huge performance bonuses for cutting jobs, despite > declining shareholder returns. Their pay has also increased much faster than > that of the average worker. (LA Times) > Shell Oil meanwhile approved a pay package that gives senior executives > shares worth double their salaries, after recently announcing 650 job losses > in the UK alone.(BBC) Worldwide 4,300 job cuts are planned due to declining > profits. (Business Times)" > > This has nothing to due with Iraq or Bush and everything to do with corporate > pay, which, if my memory serves me right started before the current > administration. Then he/she moves on to ... > > "The most notorious tax rebate was received by CSX, until recently headed by > the President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow. In the last > 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion, and they paid zero in U.S. > corporate taxes. In fact, they received rebates of $164 billion. In 1960, > corporations paid 23 percent of all Federal tax revenues. Last year, that > dropped to 9.5 percent, less than half of the share that corporations paid 40 > years ago. (Sen. Mark Dayton)" > > Isn't CSX a transportation company? What do they have to due with Iraq? Oil? > Who set the tax policies that governed CSX's taxes last year? What does this > have to do with Bush? > > "And they are such good citizens anyway...." > For gods sake, where the H E double hockey stick is he/she going with > this????? Oil companies bad? Ok, add Steel companies bad, meat packing > companies bad, restaurants bad, farms bad. Not disagreeing with idea that > corporations should be good citizens, I just don't see how everything ties > together and what he/she recommends. It is easy to bitch, hard to solve. > > "Well, we meant well...." > How many Iraq's died each year under Saddam? Give us a comparison. And what > does this have to due with Corporate tax rates, executive pay or the military > cost of defending oil reserves or the overall cost of the war? > Again, Dana, you have proven yourself to be a much more persuasive and factual > debater to pass this trash around. > > > Hope everyone is enjoying or for you across the pond has enjoyed their Sunday. > > Andy > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:11 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: it's not abou the oil > > > http://210.50.193.224/Untitled-1.html > > -- > Mr Jones and me > We're stumbling through the barrio.... > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
