"The mine safety czar, Richard Stickler, a former coal company executive with a lousy safety record, was deemed so unfit for the post by Republican and Democratic senators alike that they wouldn't confirm him. So Bush appointed him on October 2006 when the Congress was in recess.
"This catastrophe should be seen as the logical product of conservative policy, the sum of a castrated regulatory agency plus an unorganized and vulnerable workforce plus an untrammeled CEO pushing the edges. These conditions added up to disaster. Don't call it an accident. The lives lost are the product, the sum, the result of conservative ideology put into practice."
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/dont_call_it_accident
2007-08-20 05:57:23 · 11 answers · asked by bruce b 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hey I just noticed I said "and" instead of "an"..so please do not tell me for 3 points.
2007-08-20 05:58:08 · update #1
So does any one else wonder about want to try and label "Victor Bout"?...have yet to see an intelligent answer...just stupid anti Canadian remarks..it is sad that he cannot come to the realization that Canadians actually care about Americans and their misadventures and devious politicians and we generally feel sorry about what has happened to a once respected nation..so please give it up "Victor Bout", if you have something intelligent to add, I relish disagreement but not stupidity...I am Canadian and it is beginning to appear I know more about the US than you seem to...oh sorry you were able to correct my spelling od "ernest"
2007-08-21 02:09:18 · update #2
It was negligence. There were over 300 safety violations in that mine, AND previous citations from other violations. It wasn't an "accident", it was inevitable that the mine would collapse, it was a matter of time and luck.
2007-08-20 09:43:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i like questions like this, and am beautiful with the way human beings answer them. the 1st element i spotted is how your question is relatively open ended and imprecise. It facilitates human beings to make sure what they want into it. You made no accusations, you named no names of persons or particular leaders, you purely asked a honest question. yet observe how protecting some human beings have been given. That defensiveness is an act of contrition. It ability they comprehend what the actual answer is, yet because of the fact it would not tournament their ideology or help it, so they get protecting and motel to the final shelter and attack and deny. they're attempting to allow you comprehend that there is no such element as damaging regulatory artwork and no such element as tainted food or damaging customer protection from poisonous imports. lol
2016-12-12 07:38:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have they had time to determine the cause of the accident? Will anyone ever know the cause? Unless they can go down there and examine the site, how does anyone know?
2007-08-20 06:04:32 · answer #3 · answered by Bibs 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Criminal negligence.
All safety issues have been emasculated in the name of profits.
Live next to a levee or downstream of a dam???
Sleep well.
2007-08-20 06:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm sure, if you try hard enough, you can find a way to blame it on man-made global warming. That way, it's Bush's fault either way, right? I'll just keep thinking sometimes people get hurt performing dangerous jobs.
2007-08-20 06:06:07 · answer #5 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Who cares what you think, you're a Canadian...
2007-08-21 00:17:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now I would call it an accident.
2007-08-20 06:09:27 · answer #7 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, why not wait until an investigation is done.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done?
2007-08-20 06:03:22 · answer #8 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
accident, not everything has to be a political issue. sometimes we just underestimate nature...or is surprises us.
2007-08-20 06:48:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It was Negligence
2007-08-20 06:00:46 · answer #10 · answered by John 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋