What is Digg?128 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+142Vote Halliburton, goddamnit!
The RIAA is suing people for downloading music, while Halliburton is making money from war, and now moving their headquarters to Dubai. Make them the Worst Company in America for their last year here! - Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -19/+118Halliburton directly profits from unnecessary human suffering and death.
The RIAA are saintly in comparison. - Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -19/+83How can people vote for the RIAA? Suing people for stealing content is hell of a lot better that exploiting a war for profit and wasting your tax dollars.
- sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -22/+59RIAA is winning. These are the priorities of my fellow Americans. Un-*****-real.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -17/+43There is a substantial segment of America that hates Halliburton because the hate the war and the "big bad corporation" makes a great target for that hate. However, it's understandable that HAL is still less hated by many than the RIAA because HAL has never directly attacked me, any friends I know, any 12 year old honor students, any stroke victims, or people who were actually already dead..
Halliburton profits when America attacks it's enemies.
The RIAA profits by attacking Americans.
Even if Halliburton is a war profiteer (facts in dispute) corruption scandals come and go. You'll have another corporate giant to hate soon enough even if HAL somehow died and withered away tomorrow. But the devastation that the RIAA has done to your and my fair use rights (by successfully lobbying for the DMCA harder than any group in the US, among so many other things) will have Orwellian repercussions well into your grandkid's lives. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30RIAA isn't really a company. It's an illegal consortium for the purpose of collusion, protectionism and other racketeering. RIAA should be, and probably is, illegal. The comparison isn't even close.
Halliburton is not an American company anymore, or at least they shouldn't be. Sure, they defraud the government and may, in some sense, be poised to act as an illegal private army. But they're just the most visible of a growing lot. Just look at the Carlyle Group and others. It's all one big happy clusterfsck with us on the receiving end. In terms of real damage, Halliburton is worse. But what's most sad is that a lot of what they do has been made perfectly legal. - beelz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19No *****'em both option ...
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Just read about Halliburton and you'll surely conclude that the RIAA is small beans compared to them.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@drinklord
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that some copyright consortium is worse than a company that profits when hundreds of thousands of people die?
Please don't read this response as "snide" or "flippant" because it genuinely isn't intended that way. (I actually am one of the those kind of diggers who hopes to see at least an occasional "real discussion" about "real issues" so I'm happy to make a serious response to a serious question.)
But my answer to your question is a question also. The way you phrased your question seems to imply that you feel it is fundamentally wrong for any company to make any profit selling any sort of war material. Do you honestly think there is a problem with General Dynamics making a profit when then build and sell an F-16? Is there something "wrong" with Colt selling a rifle that cost them $x to make for $x+y?
I am IN NO WAY either defending (or attacking) the specifics of the contracts Halliburton has engaged in. There are many details I don't know about those contracts (and investigations are underway to determine the details specifically because the details are still unclear to many) and for many of us, "final judgment" will have to be reserved until all the facts are established.
What I do feel is happening is that a very large percentage of the people who just fundamentally hate the fact that we are in Iraq, or that George Bush won the last election, or that WMD's weren't found, or whatever, have decided to level all their frustration at HAL. And frankly many of these comments here (much like yours) that "it's immoral to profit during war" are such broad-sweeping statements that they simply cannot hold up.
So immediately people might revise what they said and restate: "Well some companies who sell firearms and airplanes and stuff could be OK since they aren't making TOO MUCH profit, but Halliburton makes TOO MUCH so they're evil." But obviously that won't really do either because now we'd be moving into the realm of having a rational discussion about what constitutes "fair" vs. "unreasonable" profit under "wartime" or "peacetime" conditions, which isn't what they really want. They are angry (at the war, at the President, at whatever) and so Halliburton will be "evil incarnate" in their mind if only because by hating it (and getting others to hate it too) they lash out at the larger issues.
But in the end, it doesn't really AFFECT anything because even if HAL was "overcharging" then they will become just the latest "Enron" in a sadly UNENDING parade of corporate villainy. It's far from proven that they deserve that title, but if they do, they are hardly "new" nor will they have some "profoundly different" impact on America. In short, we've been overcharged for $600 hammers before. We will be again.
The RIAA, on the other hand, has had a direct, intentional, and intensely deep impact on the very notion of what you and I are allowed to "own" and "use" and I'm NOT just talking about music! The impact of their efforts to "uninvent" everything from the mp3 player to the concept of fair use rights themselves has profound implications to the very ways you and I and future generations will be able to express ourselves, comment on how others have expressed them selves, and share those ideas.
The very fact that we are quoting each other in this discussion should remind everyone of the frightening implications of what the RIAA crowd stands for. Imagine a future where you hear the president make a speech, want to comment on what he's said, but literally cannot do it because they have locked the content into a DRM stream that you can't break. Or if you can, you have to worry that you don't have the rights to do it because the original broadcast was copyrighted by the news company that produced it.
I stand by my assertion that the Halliburtons of this world will come and go and leave very little long-term effect behind them.
The RIAA has done damage that will last for generations.
Halliburton may (or may not) be a greedy company taking advantage of unclear contracts. Nothing really new here.
The RIAA is actively destroying freedom. They are NOT just about stopping piracy, they are about *controlling* the expression of thought itself. Truly scary in my opinion.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16celeine dion? michael bolton? justin timberlake?
- zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21@coolestkidalive
Hey Mr technical, the move hasn't be done yet. Besides, one could easily argue a company founded in the US with a US office is still an American company, no matter if the headquarters is no longer on US soil. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@prisoner - Are you seriously suggesting that some copyright consortium is worse than a company that profits when hundreds of thousands of people die?
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Halliburton is the epitome of American ideals?... Wow, it's all so clear to me now, I've been so far behind since I missed that specific subliminal message on Fox News... It just all makes sense after coming to this realization... I shall now be a good American, thank you sir for your wakeup call.
- simplenation, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12after 30 mins this hit the front page these are the results:
halliburton: 41.9% (2250 votes)
riaa: 58.1% (3120 votes)
let's see what the digg community is gonna do... - ferrofluid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12There was no 'both' option BOOOOOOOOOOOO
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13RIAA profits off of people stealing music. Haliburton profits off of war.
- lemurs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I can't even begin to comprehend how the RIAA is leading this poll... Do people not know what Halliburton does (and doesn't do for that matter)?
The RIAA is an organization run by a bunch of idiots that, through a misguided attempt to sustain what is becoming a rapidly obsolete business model, are harming artists, suppressing market forces, and screwing up a small subset of the economy.
Halliburton has done pretty much every horrible thing you can think of including (literally) putting a price on human life.
If you haven't already, educate yourself:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/halliburtonprimer.html
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/02/16/040216fa_fact
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/07/we_455_01.html
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton - posure, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10As much as I hate the RIAA, Halliburton puts money above human life, you can't get much worse than that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21***** the RIAA
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15***** Haliburton harder.
- scbysnx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm an american, a republican, a christian, I hate cheney and haliburton. I'm not typical at all of digg but I'll say I don't like hal and I say that because I LOVE america but not what the bush administration (or any recent administration or large company for that matter).. (or ignorant idiot who sues over his cornflakes being dangerously saugy) is turning it into. I'm honestly starting to wonder if the overthrow of the government that the founding fathers talked about isn't a true overthrow, and if not they would probably recommend it now. THEY DECLARED INDEPENDENCE OVER A PERCENT TAX the real reason was because of no representation in parliament. Do we honestly have representation in congress? Do you really believe your lawmakers have you in mind? I hate what this country is turning into
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@nestafett
Thanks for illustrating his point, any of those names have caused a great amount of suffering with the help of the RIAA....
BUT I think he meant, you know, establishing a monolithic lobbying body that forces through laws that prevent human freedom and destroying the lives individuals nearly at random, a practice it will likely continue for many decades to come, with the biased laws on the books for who knows how long... Seems worse than me than being in the wrong place at the wrong time (hanging out with Dick Cheney when Bush wanted to invade Iraq). - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5coolestkidalive - "Technically Halliburton isn't an American company"
The RIAA isn't a company at all. DUH - graywolf323, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4sometimes it makes you wonder if a lot of people were ever in touch with reality to begin with
- saintdesy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's a ridiculous statement. I love America. That's why I hate a company who sucked tens of billions of dollars away from America in no-bid cost-plus (basically, "the more money you waste, the more money you get") contracts and provided ***** service.
If you think that hating Halliburton = hating America, you seriously need to get your head out of your ass. - Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But the RIAA isn't, and never was a company...
- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"You are judged by the company you keep. Since George Sorros and Michael Moore are stockholders in Halliburton, and since KKKlintooon gave them no bid contracts in Kosovo, Halliburton isn't looking so good.
Sorry to poke a hole in your Bush bashing, American hating masturbation fest."
Damn you keymanjim,
You can take yourself and actual facts off of Digg. We are in the middle of a FUD and spin orgy, and nothing gives Libs a softy faster than the truth. Why should the Libs care if their leftist poster children own a significant portion of Halliburton? Why should anyone care if Sorros is one of the biggest contributers for the left and just bought $62,600,000 worth of stock?
/s - ropers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Let's not forget that KBR is (technically was) a Halliburton subsidiary.
Anybody involved with Operation Irape yer Freedom will of course know KBR, but for the benefit of everybody: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%2C_Brown_and_Root - Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Got to love people voting against Halliburton simply because most don't know what the hell they do.
Parrots out number humans on this site anyway - Brian10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is an easy choice, RIAA is worse by far. The RIAA is intent in destroying our freedom so they can squeeze out an extra dollar. This is greed at its worse. They have employed every tactic including dirty politics and sueing 90 year old grandmas and 12 year old kids. They are hell bent on stepping on your rights.
Halliburton is a company that was at the right place at the right time. If Halliburton wasn't there, some other company would have stepped up and would have been viewed exactly the same. When the Democrats take over congress and the presidential seat, you'll still see Halliburton win major contracts and no-bid contracts just like they did in the Clinton years. They're lucky because the only other company with the same logistics to handle that level of work is Slumberger. Try and guess to see if our government is going to award Iraq work to a FRENCH company. No bid contracts? You bet. - moofer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is trully only one way to settle this...
Thunderdome - lemurs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@kolobcreek
uhm, yea, no not so much. Halliburton pays people to drive trucks, etc in war zones, but that does not mean that they 1) do it in a cost effective manor 2) do so in a manor that meets the best interest of soldiers or the US 3) care about the people they employ. In fact there is a *ton* of evidence the proves the contrary. They do in fact make money off the pain and suffering of men and women - soldiers, those they employ, and the civilians in the war zone.
From the LA Times
Some contractors have seen their efforts in Iraq dismissed by friends and neighbors as the product of greed.
"There's no support," said Art Faust, 56, a former trucker for KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary now being spun off into a separate company. Faust, of Porter, Texas, has been trying to get psychological treatment after being caught in an ambush in which three other truckers and a soldier were killed. "It's just like someone hit the delete button."
From Commondreams.org
News reports suggest that Pentagon is currently using the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) to draw up a blacklist of non-US companies that have done business in Iran. Yet, Halliburton has conducted Business in Iran through subsidiaries. When Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he inquired about an ILSA waiver to pursue oil field developments in Iran. In 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Halliburton Energy Services paid $15,000 to settle Department of Commerce allegations that the company had broken anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act for an Iran-related transaction. Halliburton recently agreed to evaluate its operations in Iran, after the Securities and Exchange Commission rebuffed the company's request to dismiss a New York City police and fire pension funds shareholder proposal for the company to examine its role in Iran.
Also forgotten is that story about how Cheney's Halliburton did business with Saddam. According to the Washington Post, "Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer."
Halliburton has also done business in Azerbaijan, Burma, Indonesia, Libya and Nigeria. As Dick Cheney once said, "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."
From Reuters
A Halliburton Co. subsidiary provided water to U.S. troops at a camp in Iraq that was twice as contaminated as water from the Euphrates River, former employees of the company said on Monday.
The subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, also blocked employees' attempts to inform the U.S. military at Camp Junction City in Ramadi that the water was foul or tell them that water tanks should immediately be chlorinated, the workers said.
While bottled water was provided for drinking and cooking, the soldiers at the camp used the contaminated water for bathing, shaving and laundry.
``We exposed a base camp populationto a water source that was not treated,'' said an internal e-mail from Will Granger, who was KBR's water quality manager for all of Iraq and Kuwait.
Shall I continue? - Rocketbird, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Worst company for America, RIAA. Worst company for the world, Halliburton.
- bgramer1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I voted for RIAA. They are responsible for their own actions in being abusively litigious. Halliburton isn't any more responsible for the war than the next defense contractor. If you want to point fingers, blame the Bush Administration.
- lemurs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Halliburton is still incorporated in Delaware, it's just moving it's HQ to Dubai to duck taxes.. erm be closer to middle east interests :P
RIAA is a trade ass(ociation) - kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@saintdesy
Its kind of hard to understand cost analysis when your don't know ***** isn't it. Yeah privates don't make very much money. But they have access to all kinds of resources. Realistically, they could save all their money and live at the base. With free medial care. Free room and board. Not to mention the killer pension plan. Sign up at 17 retire will full benefits at 47. Lots of guys only serve half that in the military then go to work for the Post office or some other government job. I think that includes a medical plan too huh... College scholarships. I bet there are thousands of other benefits.
I hear it isn't uncommon for Privates or similar ranking personnel to have over 10k at the end of the year. How many of us can say that. Because the military pays all their expenses.
And I don't think every Haliburton employ makes $100k keeping general issue boxers wrinkle free. - ropers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I recommend Firefox with AdBlock Plus. Preferably on Ubuntu or (even better) on OpenBSD.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Haliburton is a merchant of death. Prosecuting college students is small by comparison.
- JimmieShack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Has anyone yet pointed out that the RIAA isn't actually a company?
Or that Haliburton does things that only perhaps two other companies in the entire world do?
Anyone with some basic Google-fu posting here or are we all squawking parrots today? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You are judged by the company you keep. Since George Sorros and Michael Moore are stockholders in Halliburton, and since KKKlintooon gave them no bid contracts in Kosovo, Halliburton isn't looking so good.
Sorry to poke a hole in your Bush bashing, American hating masturbation fest. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, the funny thing is that the "Recording Industry Association of America" is comprised of 4 companies, only 1 of which is American.
- betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Talk about choosing the lesser of two evils...
- kosmoX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmmm....The company that provides us with energy for our homes and fuel for our cars at a price that is cheaper than almost every other country on Earth....OR...The company that makes sure you get reamed in the ass every time you buy a CD.
- BZKyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gosh, but both look so appealing...
- randf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i vote consumerist as the worst. don't they have a comment section in their own website?
- FreeMktAdvocate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2George Sorros and Michael Moore love Haliburton, why can't you? Can't we all just love one another?
- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually military retirement is 20 yrs, so someone can retire at 37. You get more money if you wait till 30 yrs, but most get out at 20 collect their mil. retirement and start a second career, so by the time they are 57 they can have two retirements and never work another day in their life.
Not a bad deal, until the left creates so much anger (like they did in Vietnam) that troops get spit on and discriminated against when they come back home.
Thanks Jane Fonda!!! - betobeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not so unreal if the majority of voters consist of MySpace- and iPod-wielding 14-year old boys.
- brandoj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"RIAA profits off of artists." Undoubtedly true.
"Halliburtin profits off of dead people." Suggesting that Halliburtin [sic.] returns a profit per human death is absurd and unfounded hyperbole.
First, don't get carried away that corporations are mystical boogie monsters - they are nothing more than groups of normal people that come together to provide humanity a service under a profit incentive. It's how capitalism works, and it's indispensable in a time of war or otherwise. If the military needs a tank, airplane, gun, MRE, uniform, companies make bids on it ( or in some cases the military offers a no-bid in the instance of top-secret services or services that require resources that only one company could viably provide ). This promotes military and financial efficiency.
The people at Halliburton have been subject to the consequences of Washingtonian politics and spin moreso than their own misjudgment - the unfortunate consequence of being so heavily linked to a political figurehead. For instance, Cheney was at Halliburton until the 2000 election - nothing wrong with that right? He had stock options and salaries stemming from that position - nothing wrong with that right? When elected VP Cheney ensured that his deferred pay was guaranteed independent of the success of the company (through insurance) and gave away his stock options to charity - nothing wrong with that, and in fact was pretty wise to anticipate any future conflicts of interest. Somehow he's taken heat for being paid his rightful salary and 'lobbying for contracts,' an allegation lacking any substance in proof ( VPs are not involved in contracting).
Halliburton also took it on the chin for overcharging for MREs, when in fact the DOD had an ambiguous contract. The contract as signed provided that Halliburton provide a minimum # of MREs, even though the need wound up being less than the minimum. For example, say you are contract with the DOD to fulfill their MRE requirements. In doing so, you make sure that the DOD will 'require' a minimum of 10 MREs in writing, b/c if you made less than that you wouldn't turn a profit. Then it turns out that the DOD only needs 5 MREs - The proper thing to do by the contract is to make 5 and bill for 10 because you had a "requirements" contract. Apparently the DOD didn't like this practice - it wouldn't be the first time the DOD has had a contract dispute.
In reality, the men and women at Halliburton have been pretty courageous to continue to supply the military on the ground in Iraq - even after a number of their personnel have been captured and executed by insurgents. Surely they deserve a premium for driving a semi through main street Baghdad instead of Boise. Thanks Halliburton.
RIAA, on the other hand, is abusively litigious as they try to hold back the surging tidal-wave of technological progress instead of adapting to changes in the market. Their endless barrage of lawsuits probably violate the anti-racketeering statutes (RICO), and they along with the MPAA are responsible for the modern death of copyright fair use in the form of the DMCA. Thanks RIAA. -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is