Come on, don't make me do your work for you.

The reason that corporations should be treated differently in charitable giving is that they are simply a channel by which wealth flows to individuals. Whether that is executives, employees, downstream suppliers, or stockholders.

Beyond certain minimums it is not reasonable to expect a corporation to place altruism and charity above its primary reason for existing. It falls to the individual recipients of that wealth to act humanely and engage in charity and service to their fellow man. Especially since, inherently, any charity performed by a corporation is just passed on to as increased cost to consumers or decreased wealth to individuals.

Eh, I didn't really want to work at it.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
 

Here are some photos of the environmental destruction that has devastated the wildlife where there are existing oil installations in Alaska. (Oil wells and oil pipeline). As you can see, it has been “spoiled”. “Forever”.

And a photo of the proposed drilling site in summer where you can see the bounty of delicate endangered flora and fauna that flourish in the fragile ecosystem that must be preserved at all costs.

Lastly, a diagram showing the size of the exploration area relative to the entire ANWR area.

Exxon gets sued for the actions of Indonesian soldiers hired to protect their employees getting harmed. Whether Exxon had complicity in the actions is questionable. The case is still not tried in court. Just because someone files a lawsuit does not mean that someone (or a corporation) has done something wrong.

Yep... Shell Oil done wrong. I concede this one.

Looking into this, I see that ultimately this story is about a corrupt politician in Equatorial Guinea, not about oil companies being corrupt (despite what liberal organizations claim).

This is about a lawsuit against Panalpina - a freight forwarding company. At this point, Shell's involvement is just being looked into as a possibility

This involves Veco, what was a small oil pipeline service and construction company. Yes, this is an oil-related company, but hardly a "big oil" company.

Sorry - this is just a (highly spun) op-ed piece on a known extreme liberal web site. I'm not going to waste my time on this one.

So out of six stories linked, only one is really of relevance. Yep - ya got me convinced that the oil industry is massively corrupt.
_____________

I am not trying to say that oil companies are saints deserving of our worship. They have faults. I just keep seeing them (and for that matter, any large corporation) being attacked as evil incarnate. It gets old.

I have to agree with Kevy on this one.

The question was about the normative use of the profit margin. You can find examples of corruption and immorality in every industry. That doesn't mean the service or product they are in business to provide is wrong. Think how many things you use that are made of plastics - petroleum products.

While I can't dispute the news stories cited, all of the sources seem to dote on the aberrations and abuses so as to make them seem like the norm. (NY Times has already had to admit to a falsified series about poverty in NY; it took a lawsuit to reveal that the Mohammed Aldura video that Reuters constantly showed, which fueled the Intefada, was doctored; and most recently, Reuters had to retract the doctored photo with the multiple added smoke plumes of the Lebanon/Hezbollah incursion)

In, oh, the early 20th century, stockholders could sue to enjoin corporate charity as ultra vires and a waste of corporate assets and courts would side with them. Ultimately, courts came around to the view that corporate charity had a public relations component and so was a reasonable corporate expense.

Well, by gosh- according to David's photos, the animals are flocking to the oil fields! It's so heartening to see a bear hugging an oil-filled pipeline- it really is. Looks so.......natural.


Sorry, David- but those photos kind of made me want to hurl. A bunch of animals hanging around a pipeline doesn't mean shyt, except maybe to a hunter.

I'm about to go to bed, and am tired, and as such probably shouldn't post in a political thread. Usually, for me that ends up with me apologizing a year later for being rude. Ah, but anyway, for the colorful pics of animals and pipelines above I do honestly smell photoshop or photo-op. Either way, it looks, frankly, ridiculous, and I'm just a regular consumer of internet images. Happy animals loving the pipeline! Wooooooo! I'll have what you're having.

So we should only save land if there are big, cute furry animals providing wonderful photo-ops? Perhaps the animals are in those shots because someone built a big effing plant where they usually hang out and they can't read the signs that say, "Warning toxic chemicals present."

I suppose there were a heard of dead animals next to a pipeline it would mean everything, eh, WB?

The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game states that there has been absolutely no adverse affect on caribou populations. Most reports I find say that populations have as much as tripled in the area of the pipeline.

Photoshopped? I think not.