Posted on 04/27/2013 8:11:03 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
AUSTIN, Texas -- Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he's disgusted a California newspaper ran a cartoon that depicts him boasting about booming business in Texas, then shows an explosion, a week after a fertilizer plant explosion killed 14 people in a Texas town.
Perry said he wants an apology from the Sacramento Bee on behalf of the town.
The cartoon in Thursday's edition shows Perry crowing that "Business is Booming," flanked by signs saying "Low Tax!" and "'Low Regs!" It's a play on the Republican's often
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
What is not mentioned, and may or may not be applicable, are the requirements of the plant insurance carrier. The insurance industry, particularly the highly protected risk (HPR) segment has well known and published standards for ammonium nitrate storage that often form the basis for code making organizations. This however, appears to be a change of hazard that requires reporting to the underwriter.
There are plenty of regulations as you illustrate but no regulation can guarantee that they are properly implemented, enforced and guarantee a 100% risk free environment. The principle of diminishing return also applies. California's pursuit of being 100% risk free, if that is what the seek, is both theoretically impossible and can be overwhelmingly expensive. They will get their risk-free state by driving every risk out, and that means all human activity.
The publisher of the Bee at the time was booed off campus of a local university for attacking the Bush administration for being "mean" to the suspected terrorists -- Bee employees responded blaming the parents of the students as being "uninformed" or just plain stupid.
It goes on and on..
for years and years Bee articles never mentioned Republicans / conservatives without tagging them "controversial," "divisive," or the like.
A long-time (Bee favorite and former) mayor embraced Red China while pushing to get the military bases (two AF and one Army) kicked out of town. She got her wish they are all gone.
. . . .
What regulation should they have, to ban houses around these plants... that regulation monger would probably say so. You’re right, stupid down to their boots.
Certainly looks like speculation at best that the two issues had anything to do with one another.
How everybody THINKS for themselves and ACCEPTS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY rather than wanting to ban this and that and beg for government regulations. You live near the industrial area with fertilizer plants, you accept the risk. Life has risks, so mitigate it; don’t run to the government to protect you from your own decisions.
It’s unclear yet whether any legal violation happened. That’s why the cartoon was so gratuitous.
I’m betting on lawsuits that will bankrupt the company, if the normal kinds of consequences to such a thing follow. And there is such a thing as working together to mitigate risks, like developers wanting to build nearby making an agreement to pay the company to erect blast walls.
A good retort would be Obama talking about our “booming economy” with a side panel reading “boom” with a fiery sign that reads..”Boston Marathon”!
Some collaboration between the factory and the residential complexes might have made sense. Was the factory there first?
Of course they immediately apologized profusely.. yet..
"January 14, 2000 in News SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – A newspaper photographer who returned safely from such flashpoints as Panama, Haiti and Somalia was in serious condition Tuesday after a savage beating suffered while taking pictures for a springtime feature." It took ages for the best and brightest Bee brains to report the racial aspect of this racist attack.
That fertilizer company is toast — but a new company will start, I am certain, to meet the demands. Cannot stop free market.
I just hope that residential buildings do not spring up around it. I also hope that big-government-so-called-conservatives do not advocate for “sensible regulations.”
Oh... and zoning is not a new or controversial concept... just something to think about.
If I was the management there I’d locate on a campus large enough (and with blast walls) so such disaster would be unlikely to spread beyond its boundaries a second time.
And, I think they have a perfect right to have a blast at their factory, as long as said blast does not extend past their property... think about that....
“Was the factory there first?”
The fertilizer plant was built in the 60s. Though I am guessing, I doubt a fertilizer plant would be built yards away from residential complexes. In the remote chance that those complexes were already there, it does not mean that people in 2013 were forced to live there. Everybody living 10 yards from the damn fertilizer plants had either accepted the risks or did not take personal responsibility of their own safety! Sorry to be blunt.
“In the remote chance” — how about getting some facts before strutting... the factory should not be a reason for people to have to abandon their homes. They get to have a blast, as I said... as long as said blast stops at the boundary of their property.
I completely agree that the fertilizer company invaded the rights of others when its explosion reached outside of its own property. So, the company must face both criminal and civil penalties.
““In the remote chance” — how about getting some facts before strutting... the factory should not be a reason for people to have to abandon their homes.”
I am not an investigative journalist to gather all the facts. We are all making our own assumptions and opining. Are you any different?
That being said, can you give me some facts to back up your assumptions that the buildings were there before?
Which is what I am saying. The factory was on grounds that either were too small or insufficiently protected. I could see siting one of these surrounded with a small woods for some protection, then a blast wall at the periphery.
Lets go with what you are making an assumption is the “overwhelming likelihood” — why should the factory assume that a vacant lot not owned by it is its blast liability protection?
Or even blast moral responsibility protection...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.